Unlike Pope Saint Pius X, Jorge and His Band of Apostates Are Completely Subservient to the Enemies of the Cross of the Divine Redeemer, Christ the King

Among the endless numbers of ways in which the conciliar “popes” and their “bishops” have apostatized from the Holy Faith is by their constant acts of obeisance before the Talmudists, who, though not for most part descended from Abraham, are the ideological descendants of those who, motivated in no small part by the effects of our owns having transcended time, cried out for the death of the One Whose Sacred Divinity they denied and thus hated, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ:

And Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, saying: Art thou the king of the Jews? Jesus saith to him: Thou sayest it. And when he was accused by the chief priests and ancients, he answered nothing. Then Pilate saith to him: Dost not thou hear how great testimonies they allege against thee? And he answered him to never a word; so that the governor wondered exceedingly. Now upon the solemn day the governor was accustomed to release to the people one prisoner, whom they would.

And he had then a notorious prisoner, that was called Barabbas. They therefore being gathered together, Pilate said: Whom will you that I release to you, Barabbas, or Jesus that is called Christ? For he knew that for envy they had delivered him. And as he was sitting in the place of judgment, his wife sent to him, saying: Have thou nothing to do with that just man; for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him. But the chief priests and ancients persuaded the people, that they should ask for Barabbas, and take Jesus away.

And the governor answering, said to them: Whether will you of the two to be released unto you? But they said, Barabbas. Pilate saith to them: What shall I do then with Jesus that is called Christ? They say all: Let him be crucified. The governor said to them: Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying: Let him be crucified. And Pilate seeing that he prevailed nothing, but that rather a tumult was made; taking water washed his hands before the people, saying: I am innocent of the blood of this just man; look you to it. And the whole people answering, said: His blood be upon us and our children.

Then he released to them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, delivered him unto them to be crucified. Then the soldiers of the governor taking Jesus into the hall, gathered together unto him the whole band; And stripping him, they put a scarlet cloak about him. And platting a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand. And bowing the knee before him, they mocked him, saying: Hail, king of the Jews. And spitting upon him, they took the reed, and struck his head.

And after they had mocked him, they took off the cloak from him, and put on him his own garments, and led him away to crucify him. And going out, they found a man of Cyrene, named Simon: him they forced to take up his cross. And they came to the place that is called Golgotha, which is the place of Calvary. And they gave him wine to drink mingled with gall. And when he had tasted, he would not drink. And after they had crucified him, they divided his garments, casting lots; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: They divided my garments among them; and upon my vesture they cast lots. (Matthew 27: 11-15.)

Most sadly, the Roman soldiers who mocked Christ the King, Who was their own very King and that of their empire's, have much company today.

Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, God Himself in the very Flesh—the Word, Logos, Who was made Incarnate in the Virginal and Immaculate Womb of His Mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary, by the power of God the Holy Ghost at the Annunciation—sought the conversion of the Catholic-hating Saul of Tarsus, who presided over the stoning of Saint Stephen the Protomartyr, when he, Saul, was en route to Damascus to preside over yet more persecutions of Christians:

And Saul, as yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest, And asked of him letters to Damascus, to the synagogues: that if he found any men and women of this way, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. And as he went on his journey, it came to pass that he drew nigh to Damascus; and suddenly a light from heaven shined round about him. And falling on the ground, he heard a voice saying to him: Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? Who said: Who art thou, Lord? And he: I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. It is hard for thee to kick against the goad.

And he trembling and astonished, said: Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said to him: Arise, and go into the city, and there it shall be told thee what thou must do. Now the men who went in company with him, stood amazed, hearing indeed a voice, but seeing no man. And Saul arose from the ground; and when his eyes were opened, he saw nothing. But they leading him by the hands, brought him to Damascus. And he was there three days, without sight, and he did neither eat nor drink. Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias. And the Lord said to him in a vision: Ananias. And he said: Behold I am here, Lord.

And the Lord said to him: Arise, and go into the street that is called Stait, and seek in the house of Judas, one named Saul of Tarsus. For behold he prayeth.(And he saw a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hands upon him, that he might receive his sight.) But Ananias answered: Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints in Jerusalem. And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that invoke thy name. And the Lord said to him: Go thy way; for this man is to me a vessel of election, to carry my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel.

For I will show him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake. And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house. And laying his hands upon him, he said: Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus hath sent me, he that appeared to thee in the way as thou camest; that thou mayest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he received his sight; and rising up, he was baptized. And when he had taken meat, he was strengthened. And he was with the disciples that were at Damascus, for some days. And immediately he preached Jesus in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. (Acts 9: 1-20.)

The conciliar “popes” have acted as though none of this is relevant any longer because of the tragic events of World War II that the Talmudists have been using for the past seventy-six years to try to besmirch the reputation of the Catholic Church in general and Pope Pius XII in particular for being complicit in the crimes of Adolph Hitler’s Third Reich and, indeed, of being responsible for bringing Hitler to power in 1932.

The Conciliar "Popes' Long History of Denying Catholic Teaching in Order to Appease the Jews

Remember, it was none other than other than the nonagenarian “new theologian” who, though a true priest, was not a true bishop and not a true pope, is considered by many “conservative” and “semi-traditional” Catholics still attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism in the very sadly mistaken belief that it is the Catholic Church to have never resigned from an office he never held, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who said in in infamous Christmas “greetings” to the conciliar curia on December 22, 2005, that what he contended was the Catholic Church had to seek a “new relationship” with the so-called “faith of Israel” because of the events of World War II that have been magnified by professional “holocaust” precisely to make what they  think is the Catholic Church answerable to the demands of contemporary Jews:

It is clear that this commitment to expressing a specific truth in a new way demands new thinking on this truth and a new and vital relationship with it; it is also clear that new words can only develop if they come from an informed understanding of the truth expressed, and on the other hand, that a reflection on faith also requires that this faith be lived. In this regard, the programme that Pope John XXIII proposed was extremely demanding, indeed, just as the synthesis of fidelity and dynamic is demanding.. . .

Thirdly, linked more generally to this was the problem of religious tolerance – a question that required a new definition of the relationship between the Christian faith and the world religions. In particular, before the recent crimes of the Nazi regime and, in general, with a retrospective look at a long and difficult history, it was necessary to evaluate and define in a new way the relationship between the Church and the faith of Israel. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005. See also Rabbis, Rabbis, Get a Grip.)

In other words, what is claimed to be, albeit falsely, the Catholic Church is said to teach that any criticism of Judaism as a false religion is (a) factually erroneous and (b) an exercise in “anti-Semitism” of the sort that led up to the crimes of Adolph Hitler against the Jews in Germany and elsewhere in Europe. Those Catholics who continue to insist that New and Eternal Covenant instituted by Our Lord at the Last Supper on Maundy Thursday and ratified by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday and thus believe, no less proclaim publicly, that Jews must convert to the Faith unconditionally before they did to save souls are said to be “insensitive” to the Jews, who are said to have suffered so much.

As has been noted on this site in the past, however, the crimes of the Third Reich were exploited by Talmudic propagandists in order to advance the efforts of Judeo-Masonry to de-Christianize the remnants of Christendom so that the Holy Name of Jesus could be blotted out from public view once and for all as every aspect of social life, including that of what passes for the Catholic Church but is really the counterfeit church of conciliarism, could be thoroughly Judaized. What belonged to Christ the King is now the provenance of the devil and his minions.

The devil thus reigns as king of this world, which is only the logical consequence of the Protestant Revolution’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King in the Sixteenth Century. Talmudic Jews exploited this overthrow to advance their own position in the regions under “evangelical” control, thus losing their own true protectors, our true popes, and paving the way for a world that spat on Christ the King as one sterile “philosophical” or ideological substitute after another became the means to organize social life.

As noted in many articles on this site, including Meet Some Catholics Truly Worth Admiring, part one and Meet Some Catholics Truly Worth Admiring, part two,  Adolph Hitler rose to power in Germany of the Weimar Republic precisely as a result of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic efforts to eliminate the influence of the Catholic Church on public life. The Nazis were racialists who hated the Catholic Church, gripped as many of them were by the devil’s occult practices and all manner of unspeakably morbid perversity. The Catholic Church was not responsible for the crimes, no matter their extent and nature, against the Jews committed by agents of the Third Reich, and the devil has used the professional propagandizing about these crimes to prevent the souls of Jews from being converted to the true Faith. The conciliarists are thus responsible for a genocide against souls that far exceeds the carnage wrought by the Nazi regime.

The lords of conciliarism have celebrated what they call “healthy secularity” and the “diversity” brought about by the heresy of “freedom of religion,” which is said to be the “path to peace, cowing down to the professional Talmudic lobbyists at almost every turn.

Each of the conciliar “popes” have been Judaizers.

“Saint John XXIII” paved the way for Nostra Aetate that was promulgated at the “Second” Vatican Council fifty years ago this very day, that is, on October 27, 1965, by “Blessed Paul the Sick,” who included Talmudic table prayers in the place of the traditional Offertory in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service.

“Saint John Paul II” declared the Old Testament was never revoked and “knighted” several pro-abortion, pro-perversity Talmudic rabbis.

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI personally visited four Talmudic synagogues and had said as “Cardinal” Ratzinger that “It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ,” thus blaspheming God the Holy Ghost, Who inspired each of the pages of Sacred Scripture.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio, however, is the first fully Judaized conciliar “pope," a man whose "kitchen cabinet includes his pro-abortion, pro-perversity Talmudic pal, Rabbi Abraham Skorka, who accompanied him to Jordan and Israel last year along with some four hundred American Talmudic rabbis.

Also known is the fact that Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s favorite painting is the late Marc Chagall’s blasphemous “White Crucifixion” that is a mockery of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Christ, His Sacred Divinity, His Redemptive Act on the wood of the Holy Cross and the entirety of Christianity What kind of believing “Catholic” finds anything in a grotesque painting whose principal message that the Jewish suffering during World War II was the greatest crime in human history, surpassing that of Deicide itself?

Call Me Jorge posted a story in 2014 on Bergoglio’s admiration of Chagall’s “White Crucifixion” that is most telling in its details, some of which are drawn from a National Catholic Reporter story that is referenced therein:

The best source on Francis’ favorite piece of art, the White Crucifixion, is the excellent Maurice Pinay Blog.  Some of his most interesting posts on this topic are linked to at the bottom of this entry.

Now onto the reveals from the National Catholic Reporter article by Menachem Wecker. (Click here to read full article)  As usual, the underlines and bold are ours.

…Under newly consistent light and amid the slick renovation, Chagall’s Jesus wears a sort of turban on his head, and instead of a loincloth he dons a Jewish prayer shawl, or a tallit. Surrounding the central crucifixion scene, a synagogue burns to the right, rabbis fly in the air above (where one might expect angels), and a pogrom ensues to the left. Above Jesus’ head, on the titulus, Chagall writes the Latin acronym “INRI” and, in jumbled Hebrew and Aramaic, “Jesus the Nazarene, king of the Jews.”

Whether Chagall, who grew up with extensive Jewish instruction despite the multitude of errors in many of his Hebrew inscriptions, knew that the way he spelled Jesus’ name in Hebrew also doubled as the rabbinic acronym “May his name and his memory be wiped out” is debatable. But it’s certainly clear that the work “owns” Jesus as a Jew. And as the Art Institute website observes, it aims to “dramatically call attention to the persecution and suffering of the Jews in 1930s Germany.”

…”In this painting, Jesus is at the center of some of the most horrific suffering Chagall can imagine,” she said. “And he is not just among the suffering, but truly identified as one of the suffering.

…”The appropriation of Jesus as a Jew is an implicit criticism of Catholicism for viewing the Jew as other, for not recognizing one’s own suffering in that of the Jews. Taking over Christian iconography is a critical move,” she said. “For the pope, the Jewish Christ may be enough to make the point about the failure of the church, and this might well speak to him.”

…”The painting comes out of the movement, particularly among Yiddish-speaking, nonreligious Jews, to see Jesus as sharing in the sufferings of Jews at the hands of Christians. However, few, if any, Christians are really aware of this movement,” he said.

Most Christians will interpret the painting as displaying a direct link between Jesus’ suffering and Jewish persecution during the Holocaust, according to Pawlikowski. But that can lead Christians to identify “themselves as victims, especially of the Nazis, rather than as a community of faith that contributed to Jewish suffering over the centuries,” he said. “The painting, as moving as it is, can send an inaccurate message.”

Dear reader, did you catch all that?

Marc Chagall grew up in the Hasidic community of Liozna near Vitebsk.  His family was ultra religious and Vitebsk was a Hasidic center which derived its culture from the esoteric Kabbalah.  Throughout his life, Chagall sought out the advice of Lubutavicher rabbis.  Here in this work, Chagall writes the rabbinic acronym found in the Talmud for Christ which means,

“May his name and his memory be wiped out”

It is fitting Francis has said this is his favorite painting as everything Francis says he is doing for Christ turns in the end to result in the denigration of Christ.  It is just like the White Crucifixion.

The rabbis that visited Francis on 13 February 2014 as part of the American Jewish Committee are in on this.  As Rabbi Noam E. Marans recollects,

“When representatives of the American Jewish Committee met recently with Pope Francis at the Vatican, we presented him a copy of the Jewish Museum exhibit book inside an artistic and inscribed box. We showed him page 105, where a print of “White Crucifixion” is included because of its relevance to the exhibit.The pope was moved by our recognition of his emotional connection to the painting, and responded with a joyous smile.”

Chagall through the White Crucifixion is performing alchemy.  Swapping Christ for the counterfeit jewish people and the counterfeit jewish people for Christ.  Not only does Chagall do this but he also substitutes the degenerate hasidic values for catholic values.  A feat any Renaissance era alchemist would have been proud to have performed.  This is the same level of alchemy practiced by Freud and his fellow compatriots with the then new field of psychotherapy.

Don’t think the Novus Ordo church is ignorant of this.  It has adopted the rabbinical sorcery and the saintings of John Paul II and John XXIII are the most recent practice of this magic.  With a sleight of hand and an assist from the rabbis, the Vatican hierarchy has made the Novus Ordo church’s faith start with the poisonous Second Vatican Council.  Now through this infallible act catholics throughout the world are commanded to pray to two heretical saints.

By the time Francis gets finished with his reign in the Vatican, the Novus Ordo church will resemble a synagogue and the Vatican a shtetl. (Call Me Jorge.)

Call Me Jorge was not at all wrong seven years ago.

Indeed, Call Me Jorge's assessment that the counterfeit church of conciliarism will look like a synagogue and the Vatican a shetl has proven itself to be completely accurate, especially when one considers that the conciliar worldview is Judeo-Masonic, which is why the Argentine Apostate celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of the "Second" Vatican Council's issuance of Nostra Aetate, October 28, 1965, the Feast of Saints Simon and Jude, with leaders of various non-Christian religious sects, including representatives from the pro-abortion World Jewish Congress, a particularly pernicious nest of Talmudic Zionists who monitor websites such as this one for "hating" Jews even though it is a duty of Catholics to will the good of all those who deny the Sacred Divinity of Christ the King and who seek to blot out all mention of His Holy Name in public, a goal that Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself is more than happy to fulfill when speaking in  "mixed" company as he did at the White House on Wednesday, September 23, 2015, the Feast of Pope Saint Linus and the Commemoration of Saint Thecla, when he spoke before a special joint meeting of the Congress of the United States of America on Thursday, September 24, 2015, the Feast of Our Lady of Ransom, when he addressed the United Nations on Friday, September 25, 2015, and as he prayed and then spoke at "Ground Zero" several hours thereafter.

Let us face facts: Jorge Mario Bergoglio is ashamed of the Holy Name of Jesus before Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and Mohammedans. He is afraid even to give a phony "blessing" in public places outside of a conciliar setting for fear that some atheist or infidel might be "offended" by his doing so. Bergoglio is the very opposite of the Saint Peter, who spoke as follows to the Sandhedrin as recorded by Saint Luke, writing under the Divine inspiration of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, in the Acts of the Apostles:

[26] Then went the officer with the ministers, and brought them without violence; for they feared the people, lest they should be stoned. [27] And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them, [28] Saying: Commanding we commanded you, that you should not teach in this name; and behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and you have a mind to bring the blood of this man upon us. [29] But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men. [30] The God of our fathers hath raised up Jesus, whom you put to death, hanging him upon a tree.

[31] Him hath God exalted with his right hand, to be Prince and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins. [32] And we are witnesses of these things and the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to all that obey him. [33] When they had heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they thought to put them to death. [34] But one in the council rising up, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, respected by all the people, commanded the men to be put forth a little while. [35] And he said to them: Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you intend to do, as touching these men.

[36] For before these days rose up Theodas, affirming himself to be somebody, to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all that believed him were scattered, and brought to nothing. [37] After this man, rose up Judas of Galilee, in the days of the enrolling, and drew away the people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as consented to him, were dispersed. [38] And now, therefore, I say to you, refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this council or this work be of men, it will come to nought; [39] But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to fight against God. And they consented to him. [40] And calling in the apostles, after they had scourged them, they charged them that they should not speak at all in the name of Jesus; and they dismissed them.

[41] And they indeed went from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were accounted worthy to suffer reproach for the name of Jesus. [42] And every day they ceased not in the temple, and from house to house, to teach and preach Christ Jesus. (Acts 5: 26-42.)

The conciliar authorities, though, have gone to great lengths to bow and scrape at the feed of their Talmudic masters whenever the latter make various demands. As we know, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has gone so far as to hide his pectoral cross when meeting with two “grand rabbis” in Jerusalem

Talmudists Are Ever on the Outlook for “Accidents” Committed by the Conciliar “Popes”

For Talmudists, however, the only kind of Catholicism to which they can give their all-important “approval” is one that acknowledges the nonexistent “legitimacy” of their false religion and which give them full access to conciliar authorities, including the men they have considered to be true popes, and instant answers to their indignant questions whenever, to use the word of Rabbi Riccardo di Segni in 2013 when he issued a veiled threat concerning his expectations for the new “pontificate” of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, that no “accidents” occur such as those that happened during the false “pontificate” of Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.

Ratzinger/Benedict’s first “accident” with his Talmudic masters occurred immediately in the aftermath of unleashing the “Motu trap,” Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007 that included a version of the Good Friday for the Jews” that had been revised by Angelo Roncalli/”Saint John XXIII” that was incorporated into the “1962” Missal that was in use in his false church until the Ordo Missae of Paolo Sicko went into effect on Sunday, November 29, 1964, the First Sunday of Advent.

Ratzinger/Benedict met with a delegation of Talmudic leaders after they demanded to see him, thereby signifying that a putative Successor of Saint Peter must “explain” a decision in a matter concerning the Sacred Liturgy to those who deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and who have used the crimes of Nazi Germany as cover to demand—and get—wholesale denials of the Catholic Faith from the Modernists in the hierarchy of the conciliar church. Ratzinger/Benedict’s ultimate “revision,” however, even caused more of a firestorm in February of 2008 than he had caused seven months before:

Elsewhere, US Jewish leader, Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League, described the letter "a theological setback in the religious life of Catholics and a body blow to Catholic-Jewish relations."

In an interview with Catholic News Service in Rome, Foxman said, "I thought I had been heard, but I guess not."

Foxman said the fact that the phrase "perfidious Jews" was removed from the Good Friday liturgy by Pope John XXIII in 1959 and, therefore, does not appear in the 1962 text authorised by Pope Benedict is a good thing.

But the 1962 Good Friday liturgy does include a prayer for the conversion of the Jews, asking God to remove "the veil from their hearts" and help them overcome their "blindness."

The prayer says: "Let us pray also for the Jews that the Lord our God may take the veil from their hearts and that they also may acknowledge Our Lord Jesus Christ. Let us pray: Almighty and everlasting God, you do not refuse your mercy even to the Jews; hear the prayers which we offer for the blindness of that people so that they may acknowledge the light of your truth, which is Christ, and be delivered from their darkness."

Foxman told CNS, "They understand that 'perfidious' was offensive, but how is this any less offensive?"

Rabbi Ron Kronish, director of the Interreligious Coordinating Council in Israel, said that he had read about the edict only in the press.

"Based on reports in the newspapers this appears to be a step backward. I think in discussions with our Catholic counterparts in dialogue the next few months, this will certainly be on our agenda, and we will be looking for clarifications and assurances that it is not what it appears to be as reported in the press," said Rabbi Kronish. (Traditionalists happy, others doubtful over Latin Mass document.)

Well, the Talmudists showed their gratitude to Ratzinger/Benedict for having gone to all of the trouble of rewriting the Good Friday prayer, already truncated by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, so as to remove all references to their being self-blinded in their rejection of the Sacred Divinity of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity made Man by the power of the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, in the Virginal and Immaculate Womb of His Most Blessed Mother. Even this, however, was not enough to satisfy the most militant of the leaders of Talmudic Judaism, men who will never be satisfied until and unless anyone who considers himself to be a Catholic ceases to insist that Our Lord is indeed the Messiah who has come to save all men, including the Jews:

The top Vatican cardinal in charge of relations with Jews on Thursday denied that a new prayer for their conversion was offensive and said Catholics had the right to pray as they wish.

The Vatican had come under fire from Jewish groups in recent days for changing its Good Friday service to include a prayer urging God to let Jews "recognize Jesus Christ as savior of all men."

Earlier this week, Pope Benedict ordered changes to a Latin prayer for Jews at traditionalist Good Friday services, deleting a reference to their "blindness" over Christ.

Cardinal Walter Kasper spoke in an interview in a leading Italian newspaper a day after world Jewish leaders said the new prayer could set back inter-religious dialogue by decades.

"We think that reasonably this prayer cannot be an obstacle to dialogue because it reflects the faith of the Church and, furthermore, Jews have prayers in their liturgical texts that we Catholics don't like."

"I must say that I don't understand why Jews cannot accept that we can make use of our freedom to formulate our prayers," Kasper, a German, told the Corriere della Sera.

"One must accept and respect differences," said the cardinal.

In a separate interview with Vatican Radio, Kasper said: "The Holy Father wanted to say 'yes, Jesus Christ is the savior of all men, including the Jews'."

He added: "But this does not mean we are embarking on a mission [to convert Jews]. We are giving witness to our faith."

"When the Pope speaks now of the conversion of the Jews, one must understand this correctly. He quotes verbatim the eleventh chapter of the Apostle Paul's letter to the Romans. There the Apostle says that we as Christians hope, that when the fullness of the Gentiles enter the Church, that then will all of Israel be converted. That is an eschatalogical end-time hope, and thus does not mean that we have the intention of pursuing the conversion of the Jews as one pursues the conversion of the Gentiles (pagans)."

The Anti-Defamation League on Thursday called the revision to the prayer "cosmetic revisions," saying that the prayer is still "deeply troubling" because of its call to convert Jews.

Apart from the deletion of the word "blindness," the new prayer - which has retained the name 'Prayer for Conversion of the Jews' - also excludes a former a phrase that asked God to "remove the veil from their hearts".

Instead, the new prayer hopes that Jews will recognize Christ. According to an unofficial translation from Latin, the new prayer says in part:

"Let us also pray for the Jews. So that God our Lord enlightens their hearts so that they recognize Jesus Christ savior of all men."

The prayer also asks God that "all Israel be saved."

Jewish groups had protested against the old prayer and had asked the Pope to change it. The groups complained last year when the Pope issued a decree allowing a wider use of the old-style Latin Mass and a missal, or prayer book, that was phased out after the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, which met from 1962 to 1965.

"While we appreciate that some of the deprecatory language has been removed from a new version of the Good Friday prayer for the Conversion of Jews in the 1962 Roman Missal, we are deeply troubled and disappointed that the framework and intention to petition God for Jews to accept Jesus as Lord was kept intact," ADL Director Abraham H. Foxman said in a statement.

"Alterations of language without change to the 1962 prayer's conversionary intent amount to cosmetic revisions, while retaining the most troubling aspect for Jews, namely the desire to end the distinctive Jewish way of life," adds the statement.

In a letter to Pope Benedict in late January, the ADL said it worried the new prayer "would be devastating to the deepening relationship (Vatican Rejects Criticism of New Prayer for Jewish Conversion)

This press report from 2008 demonstrated just how utterly out of touch with reality the conciliarists were. Walter Kasper, who will be the subject yet again of the next commentary on this website, did not speak publicly on this matter without the personal approval of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. It is clear that both of them believed that the rewritten prayer would deflect criticism from the likes of Abraham Foxman and other Talmudic leaders. However, this is what happens when one proceeds to tamper with the timelessness of the Sacred Liturgy in order to appease anyone, including the ancient enemies of the Faith. There was no need to rewrite the Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews, one of the most ancient prayers in the liturgy of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI chose to rewrite the prayer at the behest of the Jews. This is very similar to what Giovanni Enrico Antonio Mario Montini/Paul the Sick did when insisting upon the removal of the Offertory from the Mass of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church and inserting in its place "table prayers" from the Christophobic Talmud itself. Such an act of betrayal was without precedent in the history of the Catholic Church up to that time, although it established quite a precedent for future "pontiffs" and "bishops" in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

This was not at all the same thing as what Pope Pius XI did, for example, in instituting the Feast of Christ the King with the issuance of Quas Primas on December 11, 1925. Pope Pius XI was opposing the anticlericalism and naturalism of our era by reminding Catholics of the doctrine that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is the King of nations as well as individual men. He was not trying appease the enemies of the Catholic Faith by obliterating traditional liturgical prayers by replacing them with murky compositions that do not at all convey convey, and even go so far as to deny, elements of Catholic doctrine. Similarly, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's actions were not all similar to the instituting of the Feast of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus as a universal feast in 1856 (with the rank of double major) and its elevation to the rank of double of the first class by Pope Leo XIII in 1889. The Sacred Liturgy has never been used for political purposes to appeal to the enemies of the Church, people who will never be satisfied with any entreaties made to them until the very Sacred Divinity of Our Lord Himself has been denied outright.

Fifty years of appeasement have taught the conciliarists nothing. Like committed Bolsehviks who were aghast that the "workers of the world" did not unite around Marxism-Leninism, the conciliarists cannot believe that their false ecumenism's concessions to their fellow non-Catholics has aroused fierce opposition from the very people they were seeking to appeal to in a spirit of "inter-religious" dialogue. This is, to paraphrase Dr. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn's discussion in 1978 of the ethnocentricity of Western leaders, who viewed the rest of the world through a Western lens of pluralism, the fruit of conciliarism-centricity, if you will, results in viewing false religions through its own Modernist lenses. The whole effort to appease the Jews to begin with was ludicrous, and now the conciliarists are bearing the brunt of the anger that is being directed at that for having been so incredibly stupid to think that they could have forestalled the criticism that they had endured over seven years ago now.

Ratzinger/Benedict’s next “accident” with the Talmudists occurred after Talmudic leaders became enraged that counterferit church of conciliarism's Congregation for the Causes of the Saints had approved a decree noting the heroic virtues of Pope Pius XII, advancing our last true pope on the path of a conciliar “beatification." The false "pontiff's" signature was need to approve the decree Once again, however, the German Modernist by way of the "new theology of his mentor, Father Hans Urs von Balthasar, continued his blasphemous obeisance to various adherents of the Talmud, including the aforementioned vegetarian and "papally knighted" pro-abort, David Rosen. The latest act of obeisance before the ancient enemies of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His true Church on Thursday, October 30, 2008, following a demand made by Talmudists to meet with him so that they could demand access to Pope Pius XII's records in the Vatican Archives:


Image: Pope with Jewish leaders

VATICAN CITY - Pope Benedict on Thursday told Jewish leaders he was seriously considering freezing the sainthood process of his Nazi-era predecessor Pius XII until historical archives can be opened, a Jewish leader said.

Some Jews have accused Pius, who reigned from 1939 to 1958, of turning a blind eye to the Holocaust. The Vatican says he worked behind the scenes and helped save many Jews from certain death during World War Two.

Rabbi David Rosen, a leader of a Jewish delegation that met the pope on Thursday, said the subject came up in conversations after formal speeches were delivered.

One member of our delegation told the pope 'please do not move ahead with beatification of Pius XII before the Vatican archives can be made accessible for objective historical analysis' and the pope said 'I am looking into it, I am considering it seriously'," Rosen told reporters.

Beatification is the last step before sainthood in the Roman Catholic Church. Some Jews have asked the pope to hold off on beatifying Pius until more information on his papacy can be studied.

Pius did not come up in the formal speeches between the pope and Rosen, but the Jewish leader did repeat a request for the Vatican archives to be open for study.

"We reiterate our respectful call for full and transparent access of scholars to all archival material from the period, so that assessments regarding actions and policies during this tragic period may have the credibility they deserve both within our respective communities and beyond," Rosen told the pope.

Six to seven years

A Vatican statement said another six or seven years of preparatory work would be needed before the archives on Pius' period could be opened to scholars and the pope would have the final decision.

At issue is whether Benedict should let Pius proceed on the road to sainthood — which Catholic supporters want — by signing a decree recognizing his "heroic virtues." This would clear the way for beatification, the last step before sainthood.

Benedict has so far not signed the decree — approved last year by the Vatican's saint-making department, opting instead for what the Vatican has called a period of reflection.

The Vatican says while Pius did not speak out against the Holocaust, he worked behind the scenes to help Jews because direct intervention would have worsened the situation by prompting retaliations by Hitler.

Benedict has repeatedly defended Pius, saying he worked "secretly and silently" during World War Two to "avoid the worst and save the greatest number of Jews possible."

The Vatican says he saved several hundred thousand Jewish lives by ordering churches and convents throughout Italy to hide Jews and instructing Vatican diplomats in Europe to give many Jews false passports.

This month, Amos Luzzatto, president emeritus of Italy's Jewish communities, said making Pius XII a saint could open a "wound difficult to heal" between Jews and Catholics.

"I ask myself why Pius didn't do the same thing to call European Catholics to action. These are questions that haunt us Jews," he said. (NewsDaily: Ratzinger may freeze Pius XII sainthood process: rabbi.)

VATICAN CITY — Pope Benedict XVI told Jewish leaders on Thursday that he was “seriously considering” delaying the beatification of Pius XII, the pope during World War II, until the archives of his papacy had been opened, a participant at the meeting said.

But the pope’s spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said Benedict’s response was not a “public commitment,” according to The Associated Press.

“You shouldn’t read this response for beyond what it is,” Father Lombardi said. “It is a polite, serious response. He always takes seriously what he is told.”

The meeting followed weeks of controversy over efforts to beatify Pius, who was pope from 1939 to 1958. Jewish leaders have said Pius did not do enough to stop the deportation of Jews during the Holocaust, and have asked the Vatican to open the sealed archives of Pius’s papacy to scholars.

Although a Vatican committee passed a decree last year recognizing Pius’s “heroic virtues,” an important step toward sainthood, Benedict has not yet approved it. The Vatican has said the pope needs time to reflect. Benedict has said Pius worked “secretly and silently” to save Jews.

Rabbi David Rosen, the president of the organization at the meeting, an umbrella group called the International Jewish Committee for Interreligious Consultations, told reporters that when asked by an American member, Seymour Reich, to delay the beatification until the archives had been examined, the pope said he was “seriously considering it.”

“He didn’t clarify what matter he was giving serious consideration and what that means,” Rabbi Rosen said in a later telephone conversation.

Other leaders at the meeting confirmed Rabbi Rosen’s account.

In their papal meeting, Jewish leaders called on the Vatican to open the archives so scholars could create historic assessments “with the credibility they deserve, both within our respective communities and beyond.”

Rabbi Rosen said a Vatican official had explained that “technical challenges” would prevent the cataloging of materials from Pius’s papacy “for at least another five years.”

Many consider Benedict’s delay in signing the decree indicative of internal and external diplomatic considerations.

This month, a leading proponent of sainthood said the pope had halted the beatification process to avoid repercussions from Jewish groups.

Father Lombardi later denied that assertion and made a rare, forceful statement saying it was not right to submit the pope “to pressures” for or against beatification. (Group Says Their Stooge Pretending to be the Pope Will Weigh Delay of Pius’s Beatification.)

One can be sure Jorge Mario Bergoglio will not proceed with a conciliar "beatification" of Pope Pius XII, until and unless he Talmudic masters say that he can do so after they have proper time to review the documents in the Vatican archives. The mere fact, however, that Bergoglio's precessor would have given credence whatsoever to a group of men who deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and who make war continuously against His Holy Mother Church and the right ordering of nations speaks volumes about the apostate nature of conciliarism. The church of "Vatican II" is not the Catholic Church. Period.

Ah, the next "really big shew" (one of the first articles to appear on this site in February of 2004) occurred on January 21, 2009, when an interview given by Bishop Richard Williamson, then with the Society of Saint Pius X, to a Swedish television station during which he committed one of conciliarism’s “unforgivable sins,” by “denying the Holocaust” that has been, as noted earlier in this commentary, the bludgeon used by the Talmudists to make demands of allegedly Catholic “popes” time and time again. Catholics were not responsible for the crimes of Adolf Hitler and his Third Reich. He was, and so were the Talmudists for having helped to create him as a monster of Modernity by working so assiduously through the centuries against the Social Reign of Christ the King once Father Martin Luther, O.S.A., had rebelled against the Divine Plan that God Himself instituted to effect man’s return to Him through His Catholic Church. (See Meet Some Catholics Truly Worth Admiring, part one and Meet Some Catholics Truly Worth Admiring, part two.)

Bishop Williamson, whose won acme, "make-it-up-on th spot and see if anything sticks" brand of ecclesiology and theology was the subject of Memo from Two Popes and Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton to Bishop Richard Williamson: No One Can Resist a True and Legitimate Successor of Saint Peter, was at the center of the reaction to Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s decision, made on January 21, 2009, the Feast of Saint Agnes, but not released until Saturday, January 24, 2009, the Feast of Saint Timothy, to the lift of “Saint John Paul II’s” excommunication of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the four men he had consecrated as bishops on June 30, 1988, caused the Talmudists and their defenders in the conciliar structures to rend their garments and gnash their teeth with greater fury than at any time previously since the “glory days” of Nostra Aetate, October 28, 1965.

Reeling from worldwide criticism, the conciliar Vatican's Secretariat of State issued a "clarification," dated February 4, 2009, of the "lifting" of the "excommunication of the bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X:

In the wake of reactions to the recent Decree of the Congregation for Bishops by which the excommunication of four prelates of the Society of Saint Pius X was remitted, and with regard to the negationist or reductionist statements made by Bishop Williamson concerning the Shoah, it seems opportune to clarify some aspects of the matter.

1. Remission of the Excommunication

As has already been publicly stated, the Decree of the Congregation for Bishops, dated 21 January 2009, was an act by which the Holy Father responded benevolently to repeated requests from the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X.

His Holiness desired to remove an impediment which was prejudicial to the opening of a door to dialogue. He now awaits a corresponding gesture from the four bishops expressing total adherence to the doctrine and discipline of the Church. The very grave penalty of latae sententiae excommunication, which these bishops incurred on 30 June 1988, and which was formally declared on 1 July 1988, was a consequence of their having been illegitimately ordained by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

The remission of the excommunication has freed the four bishops from a very serious canonical penalty, but it has not changed the juridical status of the Society of Saint Pius X, which presently does not enjoy any canonical recognition by the Catholic Church. The four bishops, even though they have been released from excommunication, have no canonical function in the Church and do not licitly exercise any ministry within it.

2. Tradition, Doctrine and the Second Vatican Council

A full recognition of the Second Vatican Council and the Magisterium of Popes John XXIIIPaul VIJohn Paul IJohn Paul II and Benedict XVI himself is an indispensable condition for any future recognition of the Society of Saint Pius X.

As already stated in the Decree of 21 January 2009, the Holy See will not fail, in ways judged opportune, to engage with the interested parties in examining outstanding questions, so as to attain a full and satisfactory resolution of the problems that caused this painful rupture.

3. Statements about the Shoah

The positions of Bishop Williamson with regard to the Shoah are absolutely unacceptable and firmly rejected by the Holy Father, as he himself remarked on 28 January 2009 when, with reference to the heinous genocide, he reiterated his full and unquestionable solidarity with our brothers and sisters who received the First Covenant, and he affirmed that the memory of that terrible genocide must lead "humanity to reflect upon the unfathomable power of evil when it conquers the heart of man", adding that the Shoah remains "a warning for all against forgetfulness, denial or reductionism, because violence committed against one single human being is violence against all".

In order to be admitted to function as a Bishop within the Church, Bishop Williamson must also distance himself in an absolutely unequivocal and public way from his positions regarding the Shoah, which were unknown to the Holy Father at the time of the remission of the excommunication.

The Holy Father asks for the prayerful support of all the faithful, so that the Lord will enlighten the Church’s path. May the commitment of the Pastors and all the faithful grow in support of the difficult and onerous mission of the Successor of Peter the Apostle, who "watches over the unity" of the Church. (Note from the Secretary of State concerning the four Prelates of the Society of Saint Pius X (February 4, 2009)

Apart from the fact that Bishop Williamson's support of revisionist historical scholarship concerning the events of World War II was just as well known to "Cardinal" Ratzinger as was the reassignment of Father Peter Hullermann to parish work in the Archdiocese of Munich of Freising (see Fall Guys Aren't Usually Stand-Up Guys), it is interesting to note that the irreducible "minimum," to borrow a phrase from a former colleague of mine, for "inclusion" as a member of the One World Ecumenical Church of conciliarism is to accept without question the claims made about the events of World War II by those who have a vested interest in exploiting those claims to make sure that what they think is the Catholic Church will continue to distance itself from its "criminal past" of seeking to convert Jews and to teach that the Old Covenant was superseded by the New and Eternal Covenant instituted by Our Lord Himself at the Last Supper and ratified by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross. The follwing articles were written on this website about this "accident" at the time it occurred: Those Who Deny The HolocaustRecognize and Capitulate, A Little Bit "In," A Little Bit "Out", Disciples of Caiphas, Under The Bus, Nothing New Under the Conciliar SunStory Time in EconeShell Games With SoulsPots and KettlesOne Sentence Says It All, Smashing Through the Conciliar Looking Glass, Winning at the Waiting GameYes, Sir, Master Scribe, No Crime Is Worse Than Deicide.)

Mind you, this is only an overview of some of the “accidents” that occurred during the now retired Ratzinger/Benedict’s reign over his false church from April 19, 2005, to February 28, 2013. This overview, however, puts into context Riccardo di Segni’s hope in March of 2013 that there would be no “accidents” during the reign of “Pope Francis,” who has prayed out of the blasphemous Talmud, had made a joke of the Crucifixion of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to a Talmudic friend in Argentina, regularly participated in the “holy day” ceremonies of Talmudists in Buenos Aires, Argentina, hid his pectoral cross beneath his fascia when addressing the grand rabbis of Jerusalem on May 26, 2014, the Feast of Saint Philip Neri and the Commemoration of Pope Saint Eleutherius, and has put his belief that the Mosaic Covenant is still valid into writing in Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013.

Jorge had an “accident” in 2015 though, and he tried to weasel out of his self-made mess by cowering with fright before his acolytes in the Talmudic media, knowing full well that he wants “good relations” with his pals who adhere to a dead, superseded religion:

In what would constitute a stunning rhetorical volte-face, Pope Francis reportedly walked back earlier statements praising Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and dubbed some of Israel’s detractors “anti-Semitic.”

In comments made to veteran Portuguese-Israeli journalist Henrique Cymerman Thursday, Francis was quoted as saying that “anyone who does not recognize the Jewish people and the State of Israel — and their right to exist — is guilty of anti-Semitism.”

Francis was also said to have backtracked on statements he was reportedly heard making earlier this month designating the visiting Abbas “a bit an angel of peace.”

The pope recalled telling Abbas in Italian that he hopes the Palestinian chief might one day become an angel of peace in the future, according to Cymerman — although ostensibly he has not yet reached that level.

The comments were sent by the Pope in writing to Cymerman along with Argentine Rabbi Abraham Skorka, one of Francis’s close interfaith colleagues, after the duo approached him following his meeting with Abbas, Channel 2 reported.

Amid a media firestorm following the pontiff’s earlier comments, the Vatican had first clarified — saying he had not called Abbas “an angel of peace” but rather “a bit an angel of peace” — and then apologized, saying the remarks weren’t intended “to offend anyone.”

Francis made the compliment to Abbas during the traditional exchange of gifts at the end of an official audience in the Apostolic Palace.

Abbas’s visit came days after the Vatican finalized a bilateral treaty with the “state of Palestine” that made explicit its recognition of Palestinian statehood, drawing Israeli protests.

The Vatican said it had expressed “great satisfaction” over the new treaty during the talks with the Palestinian delegation. It said the pope, and later the Vatican secretary of state, also expressed hopes that direct peace talks with Israel would resume.

“To this end, the wish was reiterated that with the support of the international community, Israelis and Palestinians may take with determination courageous decisions to promote peace,” a Vatican statement said.

It added that inter-religious dialogue was needed to combat terrorism.

Israel didn’t comment on Francis’s “angel of peace” compliment but complained that Abbas was using the trip to score political points.

“It is regrettable that Mahmoud Abbas uses international forums to attack Israel and refrains from returning to negotiations which is the right way to implement a political vision and a solution of peace,” said Foreign Ministry spokesman Emmanuel Nahshon.

Israel earlier had expressed its “disappointment” that the Vatican officially recognized the state of Palestine in the treaty, which covers the activities of the Catholic Church in Palestinian territory. (Weasel Jorge Says That  Not Recognizing Israel Is Anti-Semitic.)

Isn't the Argentine Apostate a veritable backtracking little weasel of a human being?

Then again, naturalists and heretics, not being informed by the Sacred Deposit of Faith, and being guided by no true principles of logic and philosophy, must dance around statements and issue "clarifications" when offending mere creatures, including those who deny the Most Blessed Trinity, as they dare not to offend God with reckless, scandalous abandon.

Jorge Has Another Accident With His Talmudic Minders

Well, Senor Jorge, aka the Argentine Apostate, has committed another “accident” and the Zionist State of Israel’s “rabbinate” wants answers, and they want them now:

Israel's Chief Rabbinate has written a letter to Pope Francis conveying its “distress” at comments he made suggesting Jewish law, as written in the Torah, is obsolete.

The letter, first reported on by Reuters, was sent by Rabbi Rasson Arousi, chair of the Commission of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel for Dialogue with the Holy See. Arousi was referring to a homily Francis made during a general audience on Aug. 11.

In that homily, or sermon, the pope reflected on the Apostle Paul's views in the New Testament that the Torah does not give life.

Speaking of the Torah, the first five books of the Bible, the pope said: "It does not offer the fulfillment of the promise because it is not capable of being able to fulfill it ... Those who seek life need to look to the promise and to its fulfillment in Christ."

That statement comes close to supersessionism, also called replacement theology—  the belief that the Christian faith has replaced or supplanted Judaism, a view the Catholic Church repudiated. In a 1965 landmark Vatican declaration, Nostra Aetate, the church established a new rapport between Jews and Catholics.

"In his homily, the pope presents the Christian faith as not just superseding the Torah; but asserts that the latter no longer gives life, implying that Jewish religious practice in the present era is rendered obsolete," Arousi wrote in the letter.

"This is in effect part and parcel of the 'teaching of contempt' towards Jews and Judaism that we had thought had been fully repudiated by the Church," he wrote.

Arousi’s letter was sent to Cardinal Kurt Koch, whose Vatican department includes a commission for religious relations with Jews.

Massimo Faggioli, a Villanova University professor of theology and religious studies who studies the Vatican, said there may have been a lack of care in checking the texts of the pope's homilies.

"I’m sure it’s not that Pope Francis is going back to pre-Vatican II theology," Faggioli said, referring the council that met between 1962-1965 to usher in church reforms — such as its relationship with Judaism. 

"But it’s important because in this environment any minor signal that could suggest that the teaching of Vatican II should not be taken seriously is alarming."

Since Nostra Aetate, the church has taken several steps to improve Jewish-Catholic relations. In 1998 the Vatican apologized for its inaction during the Holocaust. In 2015, the Vatican released a document that for the first time explicitly advises Catholics not to attempt to convert Jews.

Francis, in particular, has enjoyed a close friendship with Argentine Rabbi Abraham Skorka. The pair co-hosted a television show when he was archbishop of Buenos Aires. They also wrote a book together about interfaith dialogue.

Arousi asked to “convey our distress to Pope Francis” and requested the pope act to “ensure that any derogatory conclusions drawn from this homily are clearly repudiated.”

Faggioli said he expected that either Cardinal Koch or the pope himself would respond to the letter. (Israel’s Rabbinate Asks Pope Francis to Explain Comments About Judaism.)

Poor Jorge.

Poor, poor Jorge.

Look at all he has done for the Jews.

He has prayed out of their blasphemous Talmud in the Casa Santa Marta eight years ago.

“Pope Francis” has done the Talmudists the great favor of stating the following in Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013:

247. We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked, for “the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29). The Church, which shares with Jews an important part of the sacred Scriptures, looks upon the people of the covenant and their faith as one of the sacred roots of her own Christian identity (cf. Rom 11:16-18). As Christians, we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion; nor do we include the Jews among those called to turn from idols and to serve the true God (cf. 1 Thes 1:9). With them, we believe in the one God who acts in history, and with them we accept his revealed word.

248. Dialogue and friendship with the children of Israel are part of the life of Jesus’ disciples. The friendship which has grown between us makes us bitterly and sincerely regret the terrible persecutions which they have endured, and continue to endure, especially those that have involved Christians.

249. God continues to work among the people of the Old Covenant and to bring forth treasures of wisdom which flow from their encounter with his word. For this reason, the Church also is enriched when she receives the values of Judaism. While it is true that certain Christian beliefs are unacceptable to Judaism, and that the Church cannot refrain from proclaiming Jesus as Lord and Messiah, there exists as well a rich complementarity which allows us to read the texts of the Hebrew Scriptures together and to help one another to mine the riches of God’s word. We can also share many ethical convictions and a common concern for justice and the development of peoples. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013.)

"Pope Francis" chose to have this "apostolic exhortation" published in the December, 2013, edition of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

Here are the three passages as found in the Italian language (not Latin, by the way!) in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis as it is published in its conciliar captivity:

247. Uno sguardo molto speciale si rivolge al popolo ebreo, la cui Alleanza con Dio non è mai stata revocata, perché “i doni e la chiamata di Dio sono irrevocabili” (Rm 11, 29). La Chiesa, che condivide con l’Ebraismo una parte importante delle Sacre Scritture, considera il popolo dell’Alleanza e la sua fede come una radice sacra della propria identità cristiana (cfr Rm 11, 16-18). Come cristiani non possiamo considerare l’Ebraismo come una religione estranea, né includiamo gliebrei tra quanti sono chiamati ad abbandonare gli idoli per convertirsi al vero Dio (cfr 1 Ts 1, 9). Crediamo insieme con loro nell’unico Dio che agisce nella storia, e accogliamo con loro la comune Parola rivelata.

248. Il dialogo e l’amicizia con i figli d’Israele sono parte della vita dei discepoli di Gesù. L’affetto che si è sviluppato ci porta sinceramene ed amaramente a dispiacerci per le terribili persecuzioni di cui furono e sono oggetto, particolarmente per quelle che coinvolgono o hanno coinvolto cristiani.

249. Dio continua ad operare nel popolo dell’Antica Alleanza e fa nascere tesori di saggezza che scaturiscono dal suo incontro con la Parola divina. Per questo anche la Chiesa si arricchisce quando raccoglie i valori dell’Ebraismo. Sebbene alcune convinzioni cristiane siano inaccettabili per l’Ebraismo, e la Chiesa non possa rinunciare ad annunciare Gesù come Signore e Messia, esiste una ricca complementarietà che ci permette di leggere insieme i testi della Bibbia ebraica e aiutarci vicendevolmente a scerare le ricchezze della Parola, come pure di condividere molte convinzioni etiche e la comune preoccupazione per la giustizia e lo sviluppo dei popoli. (Data presso San Pietro, alla chiusura dell’Anno della fede, il 24 novembre, Solennità i i. S. Gesù Cristo Re dell’Universo, dell’anno 2013, primo del mio Pontificato. Acta Apostolicae Sedis, December, 2013.)

This should have appeased the Talmudists just a little bit as this was the first time that a conciliar “pope” had issued an “encyclical letter” or, in the case of Evangelii Gaudium, an “apostolic exhortation,” to formalize the heretical teaching that Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II had enunciated without equivocation when addressing Talmudists in Mainz, Germany, on November 17, 1980, the Feast of Saint Gregory Thaumaturgus.

“The first dimension of this dialogue, that is, the meeting between the people of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God, and that of the New Covenant, is at the same time a dialogue within our Church, that is to say, between the first and second part of her Bible ... Jews and Christians, as children of Abraham, are called to be a blessing to the world. By committing themselves together for peace and justice among all men and peoples." Cited by John Vennari in Secret of John Paul II's Success.)

The full text is available on the Vatican website in Italian and German. Here are the relevant passages in these two languages, including a paragraph not cited by Mr. Vennari:

Non si tratta soltanto della correzione di una falsa visuale religiosa del popolo ebraico, che nel corso della storia fu in parte concausa di misconoscimenti e persecuzioni, ma prima di tutto del dialogo tra le due religioni, che - con l’islam - poterono donare al mondo la fede nel Dio unico e ineffabile che ci parla, e lo vogliono servire a nome di tutto ii mondo.

La prima dimensione di questo dialogo, cioè l’incontro tra il popolo di Dio del Vecchio Testamento, da Dio mai denunziato (cf. Rm 11,29), e quello del Nuovo Testamento, è allo stesso tempo un dialogo all’interno della nostra Chiesa, per così dire tra la prima e la seconda parte della sua Bibbia. In proposito dicono le direttive per l’applicazione della dichiarazione conciliare “Nostra Aetate”: “Ci si sforzerà di comprendere meglio tutto ciò che nell’Antico Testamento conserva un valore proprio e perpetuo..., poiché questo valore non è stato obliterato dall’ulteriore interpretazione del Nuovo Testamento, la quale al contrario ha dato all’Antico il suo significato più compiuto, cosicché reciprocamente il Nuovo riceve dall’Antico luce e spiegazione” (Nostra Aetate, II) (Meeting with the representatives of the Hebrew community, Mainz, Germany, 17 November 1980, Italian)

Dabei geht es nicht nur um die Berichtigung einer falschen religiösen Sicht des Judenvolkes, welche die Verkennungen und Verfolgungen im Lauf der Geschichte zum Teil mitverursachte, sondern vor allem um den Dialog zwischen den zwei Religionen, die - mit dem Islam - der Welt den Glauben an den einen, unaussprechlichen, uns ansprechenden Gott schenken durften und stellvertretend für die ganze Welt ihm dienen wollen.

Die erste Dimension dieses Dialogs, nämlich die Begegnung zwischen dem Gottesvolk des von Gott nie gekündigten Alten Bundes, ist zugleich ein Dialog innerhalb unserer Kirche, gleichsam zwischen dem ersten und zweiten Teil ihrer Bibel. Hierzu sagen die Richtlinien für die Durchführung der Konzilserklärung ”Nostra aetate“: ”Man muß bemüht sein, besser zu verstehen, was im Alten Testament von eigenem und bleibendem Wert ist..., da dies durch die spätere Interpretation im Licht des Neuen Testaments, die ihm seinen vollen Sinn gibt, nicht entwertet wird, so daß sich vielmehr eine gegenseitige Beleuchtung und Ausdeutung ergibt“. (Meeting with the representatives of the Hebrew community, Mainz, Germany, 17 November 1980, German.)

Here are the same passages in English as translated by an online translator:

This is not only about the correction of a false religious view of the Jewish people, which partly contributed to the misunderstandings and persecutions in the course of history, but above all about the dialogue between the two religions, which - with Islam - were allowed to give the world faith in the one, unspeakable, appealing God and want to serve him on behalf of the whole world.

The first dimension of this dialogue, namely the encounter between the People of God of the Old Covenant, never terminated by God, is at the same time a dialogue within our Church, as it were between the first and second parts of her Bible. To this end, the guidelines for the implementation of the Conciliar Declaration "Nostra Aetate" say: "One must strive to better understand what is of its own and lasting value in the Old Testament... since this is not devalued by the later interpretation in the light of the New Testament, which gives it its full meaning, so that rather a mutual illumination and interpretation results". (From an online translation into English: Meeting with the representatives of the Hebrew community, Mainz, Germany, 17 November 1980.)

No, not even this was not to keep the Talmudists happy as they are ever on the lookout for even the height of “supersessionist” theology that they believed had been suppressed by Nostra Aetate and the latter’s gradual “evolution” into full scale heresy enunciated by Wojtyla/John Paul II in 1980, reiterated in various ways and at various times by “Cardinal” Ratzinger/ “Pope Benedict XVI,” and Bergoglio finally inserted a formal “papal” text that clearly and unequivocally contradicts Catholic teaching on a matter that is so clear as to leave no one with any excuse not to realize the See of Peter has been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958.

As to the most recent demands made by the “chief rabbinate” of Israel, several points must be made before dealing with the completely Modernist gibberish of Victor Manuel Fernandez, the ghostwriter of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s infamous Amoris Laetitia, March 19, 2016 (Jorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men: A Brief OverviewJorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men: Another Brief Overview, Jorge's Exhortaion of Self-Justification Before Men, part three,  Jorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part fourJorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part fiveJorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part sixJorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part sevenJorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part eightJorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part nineJorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part ten, THE END!), that was meant to serve as a oblique reply to the Israeli rabbinate.

First, Jorge Mario Bergoglio never intends to offend the Jews. Never. Under any circumstances. He is ever ready to insult, disparage, belittle, demand, and punish Catholics who hold to anything even remoting approaching authentic Catholic beliefs.

Second, Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s discussion of Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians was not meant to be any kind of disparagement of the 613 precepts of the Mosaic Law that Jews were bound to observe as he respects Jewish law, traditions, and customs as practiced by today’s Talmudists.

The Mosaic Law was to be in effect until the curtain in the Temple was torn in two from top to bottom at the moment Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ breathed His last breath atop Golgotha and uttered His last words on Good Friday. Teaching us yet another lesson in humility, therefore, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ permits Himself to be ritually circumcised to demonstrate that He was willing to submit Himself to the precepts of Old Law, of which He was the very Author, and that He had come from the House of David and was born of a Jewish maiden to be subject to the authority of a Jewish carpenter.

The Mosaic Law consisted of six hundred thirteen precepts designed to regulate almost every aspect of daily life. The people of the Old Covenant needed to have their lives bound in such a way so as to observe the Ten Commandments because the circumcision of the spirit, signifying the blotting out of our sins, that would be effected by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Sacrifice to His Co-Equal, Co-Eternal God the Father in Spirit and in Truth had not yet taken place. Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Redemptive Act on the wood of the Holy Cross liberated man from the shackles of the Old Law, freeing him to live in accord with the precepts of the New Law of Love made possible by the outflowing of Sanctifying Grace, symbolized by the Blood and water that flowed from Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Wounded Side when It was pierced by the centurion's lance. Until that time, however, men who were of the stock of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and Moses had to submit to the Old Law, codified in the Torah. By submitting Himself to the precepts of the Old Law at His Circumcision, for example, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was teaching us that those of us who have been incorporated into His Death and Resurrection in the Sacrament of Baptism must submit to His New and Eternal Covenant at every moment of our lives without any degree of complaint or hesitation whatsoever.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio has no “beef” whatsoever with Mosaic law. He hates the Ten Commandments and the certainty with which they and the precepts of the Natural Law has been taught infallibly by Holy Mother Church from time immemorial, and he his disparagement of them has been on full display throughout the intolerably and excruciatingly painful eight years, twenty-one days (or, believe it or not, a nightmarish three thousand ninety-seven days—that’s right,  3097 days).

It was on Friday, January 27, 2017, the Feast of Saint John Chrysostom, that “Pope Francis” yet again demonstrate his revulsion for those who believe that it is necessary to keep all of the Commandments perfectly:

Not taking risks, please, no… prudence…’ All the commandments, all of them… Yes, it’s true, but this paralyzes you too, it makes you forget so many graces received, it takes away memory, it takes away hope, because it doesn’t allow you to go forward. And the present of a Christian, of such a Christian, is how when one goes along the street and an unexpected rain comes, and the garment is not so good and the fabric shrinks… Confined souls… This is faintheartedness: this is the sin against memory, courage, patience, and hope. May the Lord make us grow in memory, make us grow in hope, give us courage and patience each and free us from that which is faintheartedness, being afraid of everything…  Confined souls in order to save ourselves. And Jesus says: ‘He who wills to save his life will lose it.’” (Fear of Everything--the "sin" that paralyes Christians.)

Yes, “Pope Francis” believes that those who are concerned about saving their souls will lose their life, thus twisting Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s admonition for us not to seek to preserve our physical life and/or to seek the favor and esteem of others in order to curry favor with the world. Our Lord exhorted us to carry the cross on a daily basis, and most of those crosses simply involve the performance of our daily duties for the love of God as He has revealed Himself to us through His true Church. (For example, getting up in the morning when we want to roll over and go back to sleep; doing a chore we disdain or think that is beneath our dignity; doing our work, whatever it might be, without being prompted to do it, etc.)

Here is the context of what Our Lord taught:

[21] From that time Jesus began to shew to his disciples, that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the ancients and scribes and chief priests, and be put to death, and the third day rise again. [22] And Peter taking him, began to rebuke him, saying: Lord, be it far from thee, this shall not be unto thee. [23] Who turning, said to Peter: Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men. [24] Then Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. [25] For he that will save his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall find it.

[26] For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul? [27] For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then will he render to every man according to his works. [28] Amen I say to you, there are some of them that stand here, that shall not taste death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. (Matthew 16: 21-28.)

Those who seek to keep the Ten Commandments are not seeking to save their physical lives in this passing world as Saint Peter urged Our Lord to do just moments after he had received the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. Far from it. Those who, despite their own sins and failings, strive to keep the Ten Commandments as they make reparation for their sins are seeking to please the Most Blessed Trinity according to the teaching of the Beloved Disciple, Saint John the Evangelist, as follows:

[1] My little children, these things I write to you, that you may not sin. But if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just: [2] And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. [3] And by this we know that we have known him, if we keep his commandments. [4] He who saith that he knoweth him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. [5] But he that keepeth his word, in him in very deed the charity of God is perfected; and by this we know that we are in him. (1 John 2: 1-5.)

[21] Dearly beloved, if our heart do not reprehend us, we have confidence towards God: [22]And whatsoever we shall ask, we shall receive of him: because we keep his commandments, and do those things which are pleasing in his sight. [23] And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ: and love one another, as he hath given commandment unto us. [24] And he that keepeth his commandments, abideth in him, and he in him. And in this we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. (1 John 3: 21-24.)

[1] Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God. And every one that loveth him who begot, loveth him also who is born of him. [2] In this we know that we love the children of God: when we love God, and keep his commandments. [3] For this is the charity of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not heavy[4] For whatsoever is born of God, overcometh the world: and this is the victory which overcometh the world, our faith. [5] Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? (1 John 5: 1-5.)

Perhaps even more to the point is the teaching of the Divine Master Himself, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ:

[19] He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [20] For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5: 19-20.)

Bergoglio’s hatred of those who keep the Ten Commandments is just one of many things he has in common with an Augustinian monk named Father Martin Luther who he, the Argentine Apostate, believes is a “witness” to Our Lord:

“[The commandments] only purpose is to show man his impotence to do good and to teach him to despair of himself” (ref: Denifle’s Luther et Lutheranisme, Etude Faite d’apres les sources. Translation by J. Paquier (Paris, A. Picard, 1912-13), Volume III, p. 364).

We must remove the Decalogue out of sight and heart” (ref. De Wette 4, 188)

“If we allow them – the Commandments – any influence in our conscience, they become the cloak of all evil, heresies and blasphemies” (ref. Comm. ad Galat, p.310).

“It is more important to guard against good works than against sin.” (ref. Trischreden, Wittenberg Edition, Vol. VI., p. 160).  (As found at: The Thirty-Three Most Ridiculous Things Martin Luther Ever Wrote.)

This is pretty much an exact representation of what Jorge Mario Bergoglio has said repeatedly, including on Friday, January 27, 2017, at the Ding Dong School of Apostasy otherwise known as the Casa Santa Marta behind the walls (imagine that, and they even have guards there, too!) of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River.

As the words of Holy Writ quoted above prove beyond any question, the false beliefs of Bergoglio and the man he admires as a “witness” of a generic Christian “faith” are mortal enemies of Our Lord and of His true Church, thus making them mortal enemies of the souls for whom Our Divine Redeemed shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday to redeem.

Pope Pius XI, writing to condemn German national socialism, which arose, of course, as the direct consequence of Martin Luther’s overthrowing of the Social Reign of Christ the King in various of the German states five hundred years ago this very year, explained that we are bound to the “conscientious observation of the Ten Commandments”:

29. It is on faith in God, preserved pure and stainless, that man's morality is based. All efforts to remove from under morality and the moral order the granite foundation of faith and to substitute for it the shifting sands of human regulations, sooner or later lead these individuals or societies to moral degradation. The fool who has said in his heart "there is no God" goes straight to moral corruption (Psalms xiii. 1), and the number of these fools who today are out to sever morality from religion, is legion. They either do not see or refuse to see that the banishment of confessional Christianity, i.e., the clear and precise notion of Christianity, from teaching and education, from the organization of social and political life, spells spiritual spoliation and degradation. No coercive power of the State, no purely human ideal, however noble and lofty it be, will ever be able to make shift of the supreme and decisive impulses generated by faith in God and Christ. If the man, who is called to the hard sacrifice of his own ego to the common good, loses the support of the eternal and the divine, that comforting and consoling faith in a God who rewards all good and punishes all evil, then the result of the majority will be, not the acceptance, but the refusal of their duty. The conscientious observation of the ten commandments of God and the precepts of the Church (which are nothing but practical specifications of rules of the Gospels) is for every one an unrivaled school of personal discipline, moral education and formation of character, a school that is exacting, but not to excess. A merciful God, who as Legislator, says -- Thou must! -- also gives by His grace the power to will and to do. To let forces of moral formation of such efficacy lie fallow, or to exclude them positively from public education, would spell religious under-feeding of a nation. To hand over the moral law to man's subjective opinion, which changes with the times, instead of anchoring it in the holy will of the eternal God and His commandments, is to open wide every door to the forces of destruction. The resulting dereliction of the eternal principles of an objective morality, which educates conscience and ennobles every department and organization of life, is a sin against the destiny of a nation, a sin whose bitter fruit will poison future generations

30. Such is the rush of present-day life that it severs from the divine foundation of Revelation, not only morality, but also the theoretical and practical rights. We are especially referring to what is called the natural law, written by the Creator's hand on the tablet of the heart (Rom. ii. 14) and which reason, not blinded by sin or passion, can easily read. It is in the light of the commands of this natural law, that all positive law, whoever be the lawgiver, can be gauged in its moral content, and hence, in the authority it wields over conscience. Human laws in flagrant contradiction with the natural law are vitiated with a taint which no force, no power can mend. In the light of this principle one must judge the axiom, that "right is common utility," a proposition which may be given a correct significance, it means that what is morally indefensible, can never contribute to the good of the people. But ancient paganism acknowledged that the axiom, to be entirely true, must be reversed and be made to say: "Nothing can be useful, if it is not at the same time morally good" (Cicero, De Off. ii. 30). Emancipated from this oral rule, the principle would in international law carry a perpetual state of war between nations; for it ignores in national life, by confusion of right and utility, the basic fact that man as a person possesses rights he holds from God, and which any collectivity must protect against denial, suppression or neglect. To overlook this truth is to forget that the real common good ultimately takes its measure from man's nature, which balances personal rights and social obligations, and from the purpose of society, established for the benefit of human nature. Society, was intended by the Creator for the full development of individual possibilities, and for the social benefits, which by a give and take process, every one can claim for his own sake and that of others. Higher and more general values, which collectivity alone can provide, also derive from the Creator for the good of man, and for the full development, natural and supernatural, and the realization of his perfection. To neglect this order is to shake the pillars on which society rests, and to compromise social tranquillity, security and existence. (Pope Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937.)

It is important to highlight the following sentences from the first paragraph quoted above:

If the man, who is called to the hard sacrifice of his own ego to the common good, loses the support of the eternal and the divine, that comforting and consoling faith in a God who rewards all good and punishes all evil, then the result of the majority will be, not the acceptance, but the refusal of their duty. The conscientious observation of the ten commandments of God and the precepts of the Church (which are nothing but practical specifications of rules of the Gospels) is for every one an unrivaled school of personal discipline, moral education and formation of character, a school that is exacting, but not to excess. A merciful God, who as Legislator, says -- Thou must! -- also gives by His grace the power to will and to do. (Pope Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937.)

Bergoglio believes that the Ten Commandments are a "burden" to men by preventing them from going "forward," and he does not believe that God makes it possible for men to do what He has taught them, thus blaspheming God as a deceiver.

Pope Pius XI reminded us that there is a God who actually rewards the good and punishes all evil, and that the "conscientious observation of the ten commandments and the precepts of the Church (which are nothing but the practical specifications of rules of the Gospels) is for every one an unrivaled school of personal discipline, moral education and formation of character, a school that is exacting, but not to excess. A merciful God, who as Legislator, says --Thou must! -- also give by His grace the power to will do so."

The Argentine Apostate does not believe that it is possible to keep the Ten Commandments perfectly nor does he believe that it is necessary to do so. All that matters to him is "going forward," which he is doing very rapidly by throwing himself headlong into hell at the moment of his Particular Judgment if he does not repent of his errors and abjure them publicly before he dies.

Third, the Israeli rabbinate are grasping at the same kind of straw men that Bergoglio himself creates by claiming that their man from Buenos Aires likes to knock down repeatedly to puff himself as a self-styled “liberator” from all “rigidity” and “Pharisaical” thinking. As noted earlier in this commentary, “Pope Francis” has told us in his own words that he rejects supersessionism.

Alas, Catholics do believe in the Old Covenant that God made with Moses was superseded by the New and Eternal Covenant that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ instituted at the Last Supper and ratified by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday:

It [the Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord's coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors. Therefore, it commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism, to cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation. Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people, but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently, but so ,that, when danger of death is imminent, they be baptized in the form of the Church, early without delay, even by a layman or woman, if a priest should be lacking, just as is contained more fully in the decree of the Armenians. . . .

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, February 4, 1442.)

28.That He completed His work on the gibbet of the Cross is the unanimous teaching of the holy Fathers who assert that the Church was born from the side of our Savior on the Cross like a new Eve, mother of all the living. [28] "And it is now," says the great St. Ambrose, speaking of the pierced side of Christ, "that it is built, it is now that it is formed, it is now that is .... molded, it is now that it is created . . . Now it is that arises a spiritual house, a holy priesthood." [29] One who reverently examines this venerable teaching will easily discover the reasons on which it is based.

29. And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area -- He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the house of Israel [30] -the Law and the Gospel were together in force; [31but on the gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees, [32] fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, [33] establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. [34] "To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom." [35]

30. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, [36] in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; [37] and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head in His Church. "For it was through His triumph on the Cross," according to the teaching of the Angelic and Common Doctor, "that He won power and dominion over the gentiles"; [38] by that same victory He increased the immense treasure of graces, which, as He reigns in glory in heaven, He lavishes continually on His mortal members it was by His blood shed on the Cross that God's anger was averted and that all the heavenly gifts, especially the spiritual graces of the New and Eternal Testament, could then flow from the fountains of our Savior for the salvation of men, of the faithful above all; it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would not have been united to this Mystical Body. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)

It is to eradicate Catholic truth from public view that the Talmudists and their Freemasonic allies sought to engineer the creation of the counterfeit church of conciliarism in the decades leading up to the “Second” Vatican Council.

Catholic teaching about Judaism was reiterated in The Catholic Church and Salvation, which was written by the eminent theologian, Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, who was the editor of the American Ecclesiastical Review from 1943-1963:

It is highly important to understand that this process is quite complex. The terminus a quo, the undesirable condition, from which men are removed in the process of salvation is basically sin, the status of aversion from almighty God. A man is said to be saved, absolutely and simply, when he is taken out of the condition of original or mortal sin and brought into the status of the eternal and supernatural life of grace. Ultimately that process in achieved and perfected when the person saved comes to possess the life of grace eternally and inamissibly, in the everlasting glory of the Beatific Vision. There is genuine salvation, however, when the man who has hitherto been in the state of original or mortal sin is brought into the life of sanctifying grace, even in this world, when that life of grace can be lost through the man's own fault.

There is, however, a definitely social aspect to the process of salvation. In the merciful designs of God's providence, the man who is transferred from the state of original or mortal sin into the state of grace is brought in some way “within” a social unit, the supernatural kingdom of the living God. In heaven that community is the Church triumphant, the company of the elect enjoying the Beatific Vision. On earth it is the Church militant. Under the conditions of the new or the Christian dispensation, that community is the organized or visible religious society which is the Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ on earth.

We must not lose sight of the fact that people in the condition of aversion from God, in the state of original or mortal sin, belong in some way to a kingdom or an ecclesia under the leadership of Satan, the moving spirit among the spiritual enemies of God. Hence the process of salvation involves necessarily the transfer of an individual from one social unit or community to another, from the kingdom Satan to the true and supernatural kingdom of the living God. (Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation In Light of the Recent Pronouncements of the Holy See, published in 1958 and reprinted in 2006 by Seminary Press, Round Top, New York, pp, 134-135.)

This is important to emphasize as anyone who is unbaptized, a condition that applies to Jews and Mohammedans and pagans, belongs to an ecclesia under the leadership of Satan, which predisposes them to a hatred of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, His Holy Cross and His Holy Church and predisposes them as well to wage wafare against all to do with Our Lord, His Church, His Divine Revelation and even the binding precepts of the Natural Law. Amorality must be the result of such hatred.

Monsignor Fenton explained that the Jewish ecclesia had ceased to exist with Our Lord's death on the wood of the Holy Cross, and that Saint Peter, our first pope, sought to bring them out their adherence to false beliefs that could only wind up damning them for all eternity:

This intrinsically social aspect of salvation is brought out in the account, in the Acts of the Apostles, of the end of St. Peter's sermon on the first Christian Pentecost and of the results of that sermon.

Now when they had heard these things, they had compunction in their hearts and said to Peter and to the rest of the apostles: What shall we do, men and brethren?

But Peter said to them: Do penance: and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins. And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call.

And with very many other words did he testify and exhort them, saying: Save yourselves from this perverse generation.

They therefore that receive his word were baptized: and there were added in that day about three thousand souls.

And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles and in the communication of the breaking of bread and in prayers. [Acts, 2: 37-42]

According to the inspired word of God in the Acts of the Apostles, St. Peter exhorted the men who listened to him of that first Christian Pentecost to “save themselves from this perverse generation.” Furthermore, we are told that the individuals who “received his word” received the sacrament of baptism, and that they were “added” to the number of the disciples of Christ who had been with St. Peter and the other disciples before he delivered his sermon. The society of the disciples of Jesus Christ, the organization which we know now as the Catholic Church, continued with this great number of new members, to do exactly what it had been doing since the day of Our Lord's ascension into heaven.

We read that the group, composed as it was of these new converts who had come into the Church as a result of St. Peter's Pentecost sermon and of the disciples who had entered the group during Our Lord's public life, was “persevering in the doctrine of the apostles and in the communication of the breaking of bread and in prayers.” And we read the same sort of account of the activity of the original band of disciples that returned to Jerusalem immediately after the Ascension.

Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount that is called Olivet, which is nigh Jerusalem, within a sabbath day's journey.

And when they were come in they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Batholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus and Simon Zelotes and Jude the brother of James.

All these were persevering with one mind in prayer, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. [Acts 1. 12-14]

Both the text and the context of the Acts of the Apostles assure us that the people who heeded St. Peter's injunction to save themselves from this perverse generation entered the true Church of God, the kingdom of God on earth. They entered the Catholic Church.

Now, if St. Peter's words on this occasion meant anything at all, they signified that the individuals to whom he was speaking were in a situation which would lead them to eternal ruin if they continued in it. They were described as belonging to a “perverse generation.” They were told to save themselves by getting out of itThe institution into which they would enter by the very fact of leaving “this perverse generation” was none other that the society of Our Lord's disciples, the Catholic Church itself.

The clear implication of St. Peter's statement is that the Church, the kingdom of God, was the only institution or social unit of salvation. Not to be within this society was to be in the perverse generation within which a man was faced with eternal and entire spiritual ruin. To leave the perverse generation was to enter the Church.

In other words, the clear teaching of this section of the Acts of the Apostles is precisely that given by Pope Leo XIII in the opening passages of his encyclical Humanum genus. The central point of this teaching is that the entire human race is divided between the kingdom of God, the ecclesia, and the kingdom of Satan. To be saved from the kingdom of Satan is to enter the kingdom of God. In this context it is not difficult to see how, by God's institution, the Catholic Church, the one and only supernatural kingdom of God on earth, is presented as a necessary means for the attainment of salvation. By God's institution the process of salvation itself involves a passage from the kingdom of Satan into the ecclesia.

Now, for the proper understanding of this doctrine, especially in view of the teaching on this subject contained in some recent books and articles, it is imperative to understand the religious condition of the people to whom St. Peter delivered his sermon on that first Christian Pentecost. Again, the Acts of the Apostles contains essentially important information.

This book describes them in general with the statement that “there were dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews, devout men out of every nation under heaven.” The homelands of these men are enumerated in the statement attributed to the multitude itself.

And they were all amazed and wondered saying: Behold, are not all these that speak, Galileans?

And how have we heard, every man, our own tongue wherein we were born?

Parthinians and Medes and Elamites and inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,

Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers from Rome,

Jews also and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians: we have heard them speak in our own tongues the wonderful works of God. [Acts 2: 7-11.]

According to the text of the Acts, a great many of these people were pilgrims, men and women who had come to Jerusalem to celebrate the great Jewish feast of Pentecost. Our Lord had died on the Cross only a little over seven weeks before St. Peter delivered that sermon, and many of the people who listened to St. Peter must have been on their way to Jerusalem at the very time Our Lord died. They had begun their pilgrimage as an act of worship in the Jewish religion at the very time when the Jewish religion was the one approved especially by God and when the Jewish politico-religious commonwealth was actually the supernatural kingdom of God on earth, the ecclesia of the Old Testament.

These people as individuals probably had nothing whatsoever to do with the persecution and the murder of the Incarnate Word of God. They had started on their journey as members of God's chosen people, the people of His covenant. Their journey to Jerusalem was made precisely in order to worship and honor God. They were truly devout individuals.

Yes, seven weeks before, the religious body to which they belonged had ceased to be God's ecclesia. The Jewish politico-religious social unit had definitively rejected Our Lord, the Messias promised in the Old Testament. This company had hitherto enjoyed its position as God's ecclesias or His congregatio fidelium by virtue of the fact this it had accepted and professed its acceptance of the divine message about the promised Redeemer. In rejecting the Redeemer Himself, this social unit had automatically rejected the teaching God had given about Him. The rejection of this message constituted an abandonment of the divine faith itself. By manifesting this rejection of the faith, the Jewish religious unit fell from its position as the company of the chosen people. It was no longer God's ecclesia, His supernatural kingdom on earth. It became part of the kingdom of Satan.

While the great Jewish social unit was rejecting Our Lord and thus repudiating its acceptance of the divinely revealed message about Him, the little company of the disciples, organized by Our Lord around Himself, retained its faith. It continued to accept and to obey Our Lord and to believe the divinely revealed that centered around Him. Thus at the moment of Our Lord's death on Calvary, the moment when the old dispensation was ended and the Jewish religious association ceased to be the supernatural kingdom of God on earth, this recently organized society of Our Lord's disciples began to exist as the ecclesia or the kingdom.

This society was the true continuation of Israel. The men who were within it were the true sons of Abraham, in that they had the genuine faith of Abraham. This society was the new association of the chosen people. Its members were, as St. Paul called them, the elect or the chosen of God.

It must be understood, incidentally, that this society was actually God's supernatural kingdom on earth in a much more complete and perfect sense than the old Jewish commonwealth had ever been. The old Israel had constituted the pople of the covenant. According to God's unfailing promise, the Redeemer was to be born within that company. Yet conditions had never been such that a man had to be within this company in order to attain to eternal salvation. (Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation In Light of the Recent Pronouncements of the Holy See, published in 1958 and reprinted in 2006 by Seminary Press, Round Top, New York, pp, 136-139.)

It cannot get any clearer than the following sentence in the selection from Monsignor Fenton's masterpiece of Catholic theology just quoted:

By manifesting this rejection of the faith, the Jewish religious unit fell from its position as the company of the chosen people. It was no longer God's ecclesia, His supernatural kingdom on earth. It became part of the kingdom of Satan. (Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation In Light of the Recent Pronouncements of the Holy See, published in 1958 and reprinted in 2006 by Seminary Press, Round Top, New York, p. 139.)

The true Israel has nothing to do with the territory of the Holy Land. The true Israel is supranational. It is Holy Mother Church, the Catholic Church. Catholics must not permit themselves to be in error on this point. While some number of the Jews will be grafted onto the vine of Our Lord that is the Church in end times, they do not have to be located in a particular country, no less one that is founded in direct opposition to God's definitive decree, which has never been revoked, that expelled them from Jerusalem in the year 70 A.D. Jerusalem belongs to Christ the King and His true Church, not to the Zionist State of Israel. Catholics are the true spiritual children of Abraham. No one else.

The late Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton taught nothing new. Indeed, it was well over fifteen centuries before that a Syrian bishop and doctor of Holy Mother Church, Saint John Chrysostom, wrote the following: 

Let that be your judgment about the synagogue, too. For they brought the books of Moses and the prophets along with them into the synagogue, not to honor them but to outrage them with dishonor. When they say that Moses and the prophets knew not Christ and said nothing about his coming, what greater outrage could they do to those holy men than to accuse them of failing to recognize their Master, than to say that those saintly prophets are partners of their impiety? And so it is that we must hate both them and their synagogue all the more because of their offensive treatment of those holy men." (Saint John Chrysostom, Fourth Century, A.D., Saint John Chrysostom: Eight Homilies Against the Jews.)

Many, I know, respect the Jews and think that their present way of life is a venerable one. This is why I hasten to uproot and tear out this deadly opinion. I said that the synagogue is no better than a theater and I bring forward a prophet as my witness. Surely the Jews are not more deserving of belief than their prophets. "You had a harlot's brow; you became shameless before all". Where a harlot has set herself up, that place is a brothel. But the synagogue is not only a brothel and a theater; it also is a den of robbers and a lodging for wild beasts. Jeremiah said: "Your house has become for me the den of a hyena". He does not simply say "of wild beast", but "of a filthy wild beast", and again: "I have abandoned my house, I have cast off my inheritance". But when God forsakes a people, what hope of salvation is left? When God forsakes a place, that place becomes the dwelling of demons.

(2) But at any rate the Jews say that they, too, adore God. God forbid that I say that. No Jew adores God! Who says so? The Son of God says so. For he said: "If you were to know my Father, you would also know me. But you neither know me nor do you know my Father". Could I produce a witness more trustworthy than the Son of God?

(3) If, then, the Jews fail to know the Father, if they crucified the Son, if they thrust off the help of the Spirit, who should not make bold to declare plainly that the synagogue is a dwelling of demons? God is not worshipped there. Heaven forbid! From now on it remains a place of idolatry. But still some people pay it honor as a holy place. (Saint John Chrysostom: Eight Homilies Against the Jews)

By the way, Saint John Chrysostom wrote the words above to warn Catholics about participating in Jewish ceremonies, something that the past three conciliar "popes" have done as "popes" and that Jorge Mario Bergoglio did as the conciliar "archbishop" of Buenos Aires, Argentina. In other words, he condemned Nostra Aetate some 1,578 years before it was issued by the "Second" Vatican Council on November 28, 1965, a condemnation that extends as well to the words and the actions of the conciliar "popes" themselves.

Fourth, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is firmly committed to Nostra Aetate, and the “chief rabbinate” of Israel does their man a great disservice by seeking to claim that what he said in his general audience address of August 11, 2021 (the Feast of Saint Philomena and, universally, the Feast of Saints Tiburtius and Susanna) puts into any question that commitment. I hereby provide the members of the so-called “rabbinate” a reminder of this fact, and to this end I will provide them and you, my readers, the Argentine Apostate’s celebratory remarks about Nostra Aetate from six years ago and then my own commentary about them (Bergoglio’s text is double-indented; mine own commentary is single-indented):

Dear Brothers and Sisters, good morning!

Often in the General Audiences there are persons or groups belonging to other religions. However, today this presence is altogether particular, to remember together the 50th anniversary of the Second Vatican Council Declaration “Nostra Aetate,” on the Catholic Church’s relations with non-Christian religions. Blessed Pope Paul VI had this subject very much at heart; he already on the feast of Pentecost of the previous year at the end of the Council, instituted the Secretariat for non-Christians, today the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue. Therefore I express my gratitude and my warm welcome to persons and groups of different religions, especially those from far away that wished to be present today.

Vatican II was an extraordinary time of reflection, dialogue and prayer to renew the Catholic Church’s look on herself and on the world – a reading of the signs of the times in view of an updating oriented by a twofold fidelity: fidelity to the ecclesial tradition and fidelity to the history of the men and women of our time. In fact God, who has revealed Himself in Creation and in history, who has spoken through the prophets and fully in His Son made man (cf. Hebrews 1:1), addresses the heart and spirit of every human being who seeks truth and ways to practice it. (Jorge Celebrates Apostasy.)

First Interjection:

Bergoglio acts as though the work of God’s Divine Revelation is as yet ongoing. This is heretical. It is Modernist. Divine Revelation closed with the death of the last Apostle, Saint John the Evangelist in the first quarter of the First Century A.D.

Here are two Catholic antidotes to Bergoglio’s celebration of the fact that non-Christians were invited by Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI’s celebration of Pentecost Sunday on May 17, 1964, as the sick one with perverted tastes created the then-named “Secretariat for Non-Christian Religions,” known now as the “Pontifical Council for Promoting Interreligious Dialogue”:

28. It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor, indeed, are they without forerunners in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our predecessor Pius IX wrote: "These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts."14 On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new. We find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: ''Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason";15 and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: ''The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth."Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and maintained. For the same Council continues: "Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals, and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries -- but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation." (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

5. If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principal trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all this, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribed to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.

6. Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.

7. There is also a certain historicism, which attributing value only to the events of man's life, overthrows the foundation of all truth and absolute law both on the level of philosophical speculations and especially to Christian dogmas. (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)

Second Interjection:

I am the LORD thy God: thou shalt not have strange Gods before me.

Third Interjection:

For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils: but the Lord made the heavens. (Psalm 95: 5)

Fourth Interjection:

Her deportment has not changed in the course of history, nor can it change whenever or wherever, under the most diversified forms, she is confronted with the choice: either incense for idols or blood for Christ. The place where you are now present, Eternal Rome, with the remains of a greatness that was and with the glorious memories of its martyrs, is the most eloquent witness to the answer of the Church. Incense was not burned before the idols, and Christian blood flowed and consecrated the ground. But the temples of the gods lie in the cold devastation of ruins howsoever majestic; while at the tombs of the martyrs the faithful of all nations and all tongues fervently repeat the ancient Creed of the Apostles. (Pope Pius XII, Ci Riesce, December 6, 1953.)

Bergoglio then proceeded list some of the lowlights of the abysmal, heretical Nostra Aetate that denies the simple fact that there is one true religion, Catholicism, and that states blasphemous that “religions” are “the search for God and of the Absolute,” implying that the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity, has not made His Revelation clearly accessible to all men throughout the world during the course of the nearly last two millennia through His true Church:

The message of the “Nostra Aetate” Declaration is always timely. I will recall some points briefly:

  • the growing interdependence of peoples (cf. n. 1);
  • the human search for the meaning of life, of suffering, of death, questions that always accompany our journey  (cf. n. 1);
  • humanity’s common origin and common destiny (cf. n. 1);
  • the oneness of the human family (cf. n. 1);
  • religions as the search for God and of the Absolute , within the different ethnic groups and cultures (cf. n. 1);
  • the benevolent and attentive look of the Church on the religions: she does not reject anything of what is beautiful and true in them (cf. n. 2);
  • the Church looks with esteem on believers of all religions, appreciating their spiritual and moral commitment (cf. n. 3);
  • the Church, open to dialogue with all, is at the same time faithful to the truths in which she believes, beginning with the one that the salvation offered to all has its origin in Jesus, only Savior, and that the Holy Spirit is at work, as source of peace and love. (Jorge Celebrates Apostasy.)

Fifth Interjection:

This is Judeo-Masonic.

One will note that Jorge Mario Bergoglio made three references to Holy Name of Jesus in the text of his address yesterday, including the one listed above from Nostra Aetate, without using His title of Christ, that is, the Anointed One, the Messias. This would have offended the tender ears of his listeners, which is why avoids all mention of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in mixed company, doing so yesterday in a manner that would, he believed show “fidelity” to Our Lord while showing respect for the beliefs who those who deny that He is indeed the Divine Redeemer, the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity Who became Man in the Virginal and Immaculate Womb of His Most Blessed Mother by the power of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, at the Annunciation.

The Catholic Church does not esteem believers of false religions for their false religious beliefs or for their moral convictions that are frequently entirely at odds with even the binding precepts of the Natural Law.

Sixth Interjection:

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.)

The same applies to the notion of Fraternity which they found on the love of common interest or, beyond all philosophies and religions, on the mere notion of humanity, thus embracing with an equal love and tolerance all human beings and their miseries, whether these are intellectual, moral, or physical and temporal. But Catholic doctrine tells us that the primary duty of charity does not lie in the toleration of false ideas, however sincere they may be, nor in the theoretical or practical indifference towards the errors and vices in which we see our brethren plunged, but in the zeal for their intellectual and moral improvement as well as for their material well-being. Catholic doctrine further tells us that love for our neighbor flows from our love for God, Who is Father to all, and goal of the whole human family; and in Jesus Christ whose members we are, to the point that in doing good to others we are doing good to Jesus Christ Himself. Any other kind of love is sheer illusion, sterile and fleeting.

Indeed, we have the human experience of pagan and secular societies of ages past to show that concern for common interests or affinities of nature weigh very little against the passions and wild desires of the heart. No, Venerable Brethren, there is no genuine fraternity outside Christian charity. Through the love of God and His Son Jesus Christ Our Saviour, Christian charity embraces all men, comforts all, and leads all to the same faith and same heavenly happiness. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

We return now to the Argentine’s Apostasy:

There have been so many events, initiatives, institutional or personal relations with non-Christian religions in these last 50 years, that it is difficult to remember them all. A particularly significant event was the meeting of Assisi on October 27, 1986. It was desired and promoted by Saint John Paul II, who a year earlier, hence thirty years ago, addressing young Muslims at Casablanca, hoped that all believers in God would foster friendship and union among all men and peoples (August 19, 1985). The flame lighted at Assisi has extended to the whole world and constitutes a permanent sign of hope. (Jorge Celebrates Apostasy.)

Seventh Interjection:

The first pope, Saint Peter, sought to convert the Jews on the first Pentecost Sunday. Over three thousand converted.

The Catholic Church seeks the eternal good of all men, which cannot be found in false religions, each of which is loathsome in the sight of the Most Blessed Trinity, and it is to this end that countless numbers of martyrs have shed their blood and that our true popes have used exhortations to convert non-Catholics to her maternal bosom:

It is for this reason that so many who do not share 'the communion and the truth of the Catholic Church' must make use of the occasion of the Council, by the means of the Catholic Church, which received in Her bosom their ancestors, proposes [further] demonstration of profound unity and of firm vital force; hear the requirements [demands] of her heart, they must engage themselves to leave this state that does not guarantee for them the security of salvation. She does not hesitate to raise to the Lord of mercy most fervent prayers to tear down of the walls of division, to dissipate the haze of errors, and lead them back within holy Mother Church, where their Ancestors found salutary pastures of life; where, in an exclusive way, is conserved and transmitted whole the doctrine of Jesus Christ and wherein is dispensed the mysteries of heavenly grace.

It is therefore by force of the right of Our supreme Apostolic ministry, entrusted to us by the same Christ the Lord, which, having to carry out with [supreme] participation all the duties of the good Shepherd and to follow and embrace with paternal love all the men of the world, we send this Letter of Ours to all the Christians from whom We are separated, with which we exhort them warmly and beseech them with insistence to hasten to return to the one fold of Christ; we desire in fact from the depths of the heart their salvation in Christ Jesus, and we fear having to render an account one day to Him, Our Judge, if, through some possibility, we have not pointed out and prepared the way for them to attain eternal salvation. In all Our prayers and supplications, with thankfulness, day and night we never omit to ask for them, with humble insistence, from the eternal Shepherd of souls the abundance of goods and heavenly graces. And since, if also, we fulfill in the earth the office of vicar, with all our heart we await with open arms the return of the wayward sons to the Catholic Church, in order to receive them with infinite fondness into the house of the Heavenly Father and to enrich them with its inexhaustible treasures. By our greatest wish for the return to the truth and the communion with the Catholic Church, upon which depends not only the salvation of all of them, but above all also of the whole Christian society: the entire world in fact cannot enjoy true peace if it is not of one fold and one shepherd. (Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes, September 13, 1868.) 

It was a mere forty years after Pope Pius IX issued Iam Vos Omnes as an exhortation for Protestants to convert to the true Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order, that Pope Pius XII issued a similar exhortation while reminding the bishops of the world that the only way that “the union for Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those wo are separated from it and not by Catholics participating in the assemblies of non-Catholics”:

So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. . . .  Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is 'the root and womb whence the Church of God springs,' not with the intention and the hope that 'the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth' will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government. Would that it were Our happy lot to do that which so many of Our predecessors could not, to embrace with fatherly affection those children, whose unhappy separation from Us We now bewail. Would that God our Savior, "Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth," would hear us when We humbly beg that He would deign to recall all who stray to the unity of the Church! In this most important undertaking We ask and wish that others should ask the prayers of Blessed Mary the Virgin, Mother of divine grace, victorious over all heresies and Help of Christians, that She may implore for Us the speedy coming of the much hoped-for day, when all men shall hear the voice of Her divine Son, and shall be 'careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.'" (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

Just consider two of the statements quoted above, one from Pope Pius IX's Iam Vos Omnes and the other from Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos:

. . . .the entire world in fact cannot enjoy true peace if it is not of one fold and one shepherd. (Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes.)

To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes not a word of those statements. Not a word. He is not a Catholic.

Bergoglio then went on to explain how “indifference and opposition have changed into collaboration and benevolence” in describing how Christians and Jews became “friends and brothers.”

He is right about that, of course, as the conciliar sect is Judeo-Masonic, making it a perfect instrument by which the perpetual enemies of Christ the King can use to tar anyone who holds to the truth about their false religion with the label of being anti-Semitic, a term that the demagogue from Argentina employed in address yesterday.

Special gratitude is owed to God for the true and proper transformation of the relation in these 50 years between Christians and Jews. Indifference and opposition have changed into collaboration and benevolence. From enemies and strangers we have become friends and brothers. The Council traced the way with the “Nostra Aetate” Declaration: “yes” to the rediscovery of the Jewish roots of Christianity; “no” to every form of anti-Semitism and condemnation of all insults, discrimination and persecutions that stem from it. Mutual knowledge, respect and esteem constitute the way that, if it is true in a particular way for the relation with the Jews, is also equally true for relations with the other religions. I am thinking in particular of the Muslims who – as the Council reminded – “adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men” (“Nostra Aetate,” 3). They refer to the paternity of Abraham, venerate Jesus as a prophet, honor his Virgin Mother, Mary, await the Day of Judgment, and practice prayer, almsgiving and fasting (cf. Ibid.). (Jorge Celebrates Apostasy.)

Eighth Interjection:

In other words, fatigued readers, either God the Holy Ghost misled the Catholic Church prior to October 28, 1965, or He was not at work infallibly in the Council of Florence when Cantate Domino was issued by Pope Eugene IV on February 4, 1442, or when Pope Pius XII reiterated the simple truth that the Old Covenant was superseded by the New and Eternal Covenant that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ instituted at the Last Supper and ratified by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross as the curtain in the Temple was torn in two from top to bottom after He breathed His last breath atop Mount Calvary, Golgotha.

The rejection of supersessionism is part and parcel of the conciliar religion, and it was only four days after Bergoglio’s elegy of praise about Nostra Aetate that that, the president of the Pontifical” Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, Kurt “Cardinal” Koch, issued a document, The Gifts and the Calling of God Are Irrevocable, that contained another conciliar reiteration of the heresy that the Old Testament has not been revoked and yet another statement that what is said to be the Catholic Church has no missionary activity with respect to the Jews.

Koch, who will probably issue some kind of reply to the “chief rabbinate” of Israel relatively soon, asserted that there is a “highly complex theological of how Christian belief in the universal salvific significance of Jesus Christ can be combined in a coherent way with the equally clear statement of faith in the never-revoked covenant of God with Israel”:

37. Another focus for Catholics must continue to be the highly complex theological question of how Christian belief in the universal salvific significance of Jesus Christ can be combined in a coherent way with the equally clear statement of faith in the never-revoked covenant of God with Israel. It is the belief of the Church that Christ is the Saviour for all. There cannot be two ways of salvation, therefore, since Christ is also the Redeemer of the Jews in addition to the Gentiles. Here we confront the mystery of God’s work, which is not a matter of missionary efforts to convert Jews, but rather the expectation that the Lord will bring about the hour when we will all be united, "when all peoples will call on God with one voice and ‘serve him shoulder to shoulder’ " ("Nostra aetate", No.4).

38. The Declaration of the Second Vatican Council on Judaism, that is the fourth article of "Nostra aetate", is located within a decidedly theological framework regarding the universality of salvation in Jesus Christ and God’s unrevoked covenant with Israel. That does not mean that all theological questions which arise in the relationship of Christianity and Judaism were resolved in the text. These questions were introduced in the Declaration, but require further theological reflection. Of course, there had been earlier magisterial texts which focussed on Judaism, but "Nostra aetate" (No.4) provides the first theological overview of the relationship of the Catholic Church to the Jews. . . .

40. It is easy to understand that the so–called ‘mission to the Jews’ is a very delicate and sensitive matter for Jews because, in their eyes, it involves the very existence of the Jewish people. This question also proves to be awkward for Christians, because for them the universal salvific significance of Jesus Christ and consequently the universal mission of the Church are of fundamental importance. The Church is therefore obliged to view evangelisation to Jews, who believe in the one God, in a different manner from that to people of other religions and world views. In concrete terms this means that the Catholic Church neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards Jews. While there is a principled rejection of an institutional Jewish mission, Christians are nonetheless called to bear witness to their faith in Jesus Christ also to Jews, although they should do so in a humble and sensitive manner, acknowledging that Jews are bearers of God’s Word, and particularly in view of the great tragedy of the ShoahThe gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29) - A reflection on theological questions pertaining to Catholic-Jewish relations (10 December 2015.)

What utter heresy.

There is no “mystery” to “clarify” as Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ made it abundantly clear throughout the course of His Public Ministry that He was the promised Messias, and that no one could come to the Father except through Him. He was hated by the Pharisees precisely because they knew He was Who He claimed to be when He said the following:

[51] Amen, amen I say to you: If any man keep my word, he shall not see death for ever. [52] The Jews therefore said: Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest: If any man keep my word, he shall not taste death for ever. [53] Art thou greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? and the prophets are dead. Whom dost thou make thyself? [54] Jesus answered: If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father that glorifieth me, of whom you say that he is your God. [55] And you have not known him, but I know him. And if I shall say that I know him not, I shall be like to you, a liar. But I do know him, and do keep his word.

[56] Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day: he saw it, and was glad. [57] The Jews therefore said to him: Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? [58] Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am. (John 8: 51-56.)

[11] I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep. [12] But the hireling, and he that is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and flieth: and the wolf catcheth, and scattereth the sheep: [13] And the hireling flieth, because he is a hireling: and he hath no care for the sheep. [14] I am the good shepherd; and I know mine, and mine know me. [15] As the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father: and I lay down my life for my sheep.

[16] And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd. [17] Therefore doth the Father love me: because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. [18] No man taketh it away from me: but I lay it down of myself, and I have power to lay it down: and I have power to take it up again. This commandment have I received of my Father[19] A dissension rose again among the Jews for these words. [20] And many of them said: He hath a devil, and is mad: why hear you him?

[21] Others said: These are not the words of one that hath a devil: Can a devil open the eyes of the blind? [22] And it was the feast of the dedication at Jerusalem: and it was winter. [23] And Jesus walked in the temple, in Solomon' s porch. [24] The Jews therefore came round about him, and said to him: How long dost thou hold our souls in suspense? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. [25] Jesus answered them: I speak to you, and you believe not: the works that I do in the name of my Father, they give testimony of me.

[26] But you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep. [27] My sheep hear my voice: and I know them, and they follow me. [28] And I give them life everlasting; and they shall not perish for ever, and no man shall pluck them out of my hand. [29] That which my Father hath given me, is greater than all: and no one can snatch them out of the hand of my Father. [30] I and the Father are one.

[31] The Jews then took up stones to stone him. [32] Jesus answered them: Many good works I have shewed you from my Father; for which of these works do you stone me? [33] The Jews answered him: For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, maketh thyself God. [34] Jesus answered them: Is it not written in your law: I said you are gods? [35] If he called them gods, to whom the word of God was spoken, and the scripture cannot be broken;

[36] Do you say of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world: Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God? [37] If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. [38] But if I do, though you will not believe me, believe the works: that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father. (John 10: 16-38.)

There is no mystery to “clarify.”

Our Lord has spoken decisively.

Yet it is that the conciliar revolutionaries, ever eager to do the bidding of the Talmudic masters, have long sought to shroud in a “mystery” of their own making the very fact that Judaism is a dead, superseded religion that has the power to save no one. There are not two “parallel” paths to salvation.

Similarly, there is no “mystery” about the fact that the Old Testament has been superseded by the New and Eternal Covenant that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ instituted at the Last Supper on Maundy Thursday and ratified by the shedding of every single drop of His Most

Night and day, ladies and gentlemen. The night of the matter comes from the adversary and is promoted by the counterfeit church at the behest of its Talmudic masters. The light and truth of the matter is from Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, He Who is the very Light of the world.

The Old Covenant has been superseded. It has the power to save no one. Anyone who contends that it does is a heretic. There are not two “parallel paths” to salvation.

Fifth, as mentioned earlier, the nefarious, lewd, and indecent man named Victor Manuel Fernandez, attempted to reply the “chief rabbinate” of Israel, but his “reply” was nothing other than pure Modernism:

When Saint Paul speaks of justification by faith, he is actually exploring a deep conviction of some Jewish traditions. Because if one were to affirm that one's justification is obtained through the fulfillment of the Law through one's own strength, without divine help, one would be falling into the worst of idolatries, which consists in worshipping oneself, one's own strength, and one's own works, instead of worshipping the one God.

It is essential to remember that some texts of the Old Testament and many extra-biblical Jewish texts already showed a religiosity of trust in God's love and invited one to a fulfillment of the law actuated in the depths of the heart through divine action (cf. Jer 31:3,33-34; Ez 11:19-20; 36:25-27; Hos 11:1-9, etc.).[1] "Emunah," an attitude of deep trust in Yahweh, which actuates authentic fulfillment of the Law, "is at the very heart of the requirement of the whole Torah."[2].

A recent echo of this ancient Jewish conviction, which renounces self-sufficiency before God, can be found in the following phrase of Rabbi Israel Baal Shem Tov (early 19th century): "I fear my good deeds that produce pleasure much more than my bad ones that produce horror."[3]

Jewish traditions also recognize that fulfilling the Law in its entirety requires a transformation that starts in the heart. Christians and Jews do not say that it is the outward fulfillment of certain customs that matters, without the inward impulse of God. In reality, Jewish theology coincides with Christian doctrine on this point, especially if we start from the texts of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, where the need for purification and transformation of the heart appears. How can we not see Rom 2:28-29 as a continuation and deepening of Jeremiah 4:4 and 9:24-25? Jews and Christians alike recognize that the external law alone cannot change us without the purifying and transforming work of God (Ez 36:25-27), who has already begun to make Himself present for us in His Messiah (Gal 2:20-21). 

On the other hand, we recall that, according to the very profound interpretation of Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas on the Pauline theology of the new law, the sterility of an external law without divine help is not only a characteristic of the Jewish Law, but also of the precepts that Jesus Himself left us: "The letter, even of the Gospel, would kill unless there were the inward presence of the healing grace of faith."[4] (Law and grace for Jews and Christians.)

One’s eyes roll at the fact that these heretics and apostates actually think that they make sense!

Victor Manuel Fernandez’s “reply” is nothing other than an exercise in “smoke and mirrors” as the “chief rabbinate” knows actual Catholic doctrine better than he does. Obviously, they hate that doctrine. However, they know it, and what they, the “rabbis,” what want their conciliar “allies” to keep reiterating that the Old Covenant is still in force and that any version of Judaism is perfectly valid. Anything that puts this “settled issue” into dispute is a casus belli.

As to the little of substance contained in Fernandez’s fairy tale, suffice it to say that Saint Paul was indeed affirming that the Mosaic Law can justify no one, that Justification comes solely from being in a state of Sanctifying Grace as a member of the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

Father George Leo Haydock provided a commentary about verses 16-21 of Saint Paul the Apostle’s Epistle to the Galatians:

Ver. 16. &c. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law. St. Paul, to the end of the chapter, seems to continue his discourse to St. Peter, but chiefly to the Jewish Galatians, to shew that both the Gentiles, whom the Jews called and looked upon as sinners, and also the Jews, when converted, could only hope to be justified and saved by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law. — But if while we seek to be justified in Christ, by faith in him, and by his grace, we ourselves also are found sinners, as the false doctors teach you, and not to be justified but by the ceremonies and works of the law of Moses, this blasphemous consequence must follow, that Christ is the minister and author of sin, by making us believe that by faith in him, and complying with his doctrine, we may be justified and saved. For thus we must be considered transgressors, unless we renew and build again what Christ and we have destroyed. — For by the law I am dead to the law. That is, says St. Jerome, by the evangelical law of Christ I am dead to the ancient law and its ceremonies. Others expound it, that by the law and its types and figures, and by the predictions contained in the law, I know the Mosaical law hath now ceased, in which sense he might say, by the law I am dead to the law. — If justice. That is, if justification and salvation be to be had, or could have been had by the works of the law; therefore Christ died in vain, and it was not necessary that he should become our Redeemer. (Witham)

Ver. 19. He here expresses the change which had been wrought in him. The law to which he had been attached, had passed away from him. Now he was so united to Christ and his cross, that he says: Not I, but Christ liveth in me. The strong expressions made use of by St. Paul with regard to the Jewish law in this chapter, may appear strange, and very capable of a wrong interpretation. But we must ever bear in mind that St. Paul speaks exclusively of the ceremonial part of the law, and not of the moral, contained in the decalogue: of this latter he says in his epistle to the Romans, (ii. 13.) the doers of the law shall be justified. But to effect this, was and is necessary the grace which Jesus Christ has merited and obtained for all, grace which God has shed on all, more or less, from the commencement of the world. (Galatians 2 – Haydock Commentary Online.)

In other words, we need Sanctifying Grace to faithfully observe the Ten Commandments (the Decalogue). The ceremonial law of the Mosaic precepts has been superseded. It is gone. It is dead. It has the power to save no one. Justification comes solely from being a baptized member of the Catholic Church who is in a state of Sanctifying Grace.

Saint Thomas Aquinas explained the passages whose meaning were tortured and mangled by the Modernist mauler called Victor Manuel Fernandez as follows:

Or, in another way: a man is said to live according to that in which he chiefly puts his affection and in which he is mainly delighted. Hence men who take their greatest pleasure in study or in hunting say that this is their life. However, each man has his own private interest by which he seeks that which is his own. Therefore, when someone lives seeking only what is his own, he lives only unto himself; but when he seeks the good of others, he is said to live for them. Accordingly, because the Apostle had set aside his love of self through the cross of Christ, he said that be was dead so far as love of self was concerned, declaring that with Christ I am nailed to the cross, i.e., through the cross of Christ my own private love has been removed from me. Hence he says God forbid that I should glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ (6:14): “If one died for all, then all were dead. And Christ died for all, that they also who live may not now live to themselves, but unto him who died for them” (2 Cor 5:14). And I live, now not 1, i.e., I no longer live as though having any interest in my own good, but Christ liveth in me, i.e., I have Christ alone in my affection and Christ Himself is my life: “To me, to live is Christ; and to die is gain” (Phil 1:21).

Then when he says, And that I live now in the flesh, I live in the faith of the Son of God, he answers a twofold difficulty that might arise from his words. One is how he lives and yet it is not he who lives; the second is how he is nailed to the cross. Therefore he clears up these two points. First of all, the first one, namely, how he lives and yet it is not he who lives. He answers this when he says And that I live now in the flesh I live in the faith of the Son of God. Here it should be noted that, strictly speaking, those things are said to live which are moved by an inner principle. Now the soul of Paul was set between his body and God; the body, indeed, was vivified and moved by the soul of Paul, but his soul by Christ. Hence as to the life of the flesh, Paul himself lived and this is what he says, namely, and that I live now in the flesh, i.e., by the life of the flesh; but as to his relation to God, Christ lived in Paul. Therefore he says, I live in the faith of the Son of God through which He dwells in me and moves me: “But the just shall live in his faith” (Hab. 2:4). And note that he says in the flesh, not “by the flesh,” because this is evil.

Secondly, he shows that he is nailed to the cross, saying: Because the love of Christ, which He showed to me in dying on the cross for me, brings it about that I am always nailed with Him. And this is what he says, who loved me: “He first loved us” (I Jn 4:10). And He loved me to the extent of giving himself and not some other sacrifice for me: “He loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood” (Rev 1:5); “As Christ loved the church and delivered himself up for it, that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life” (Eph 5:25).

But it should be noted that the Son delivered Himself, and the Father His Son: “He spared not even his own Son, but delivered him up for us” (Rom 8:32). Judas, too, delivered Him up, as is said in Matthew (26:48). It is all one event, but the intention is not the same, because the Father did so out of love, the Son out of obedience along with love, but Judas out of avarice and treachery.

Then when he says, I cast not away the grace of God, he draws the principal conclusion. First, he draws the conclusion; secondly, he explains it. He says, therefore: Because I have received from God so great a grace that He delivered Himself, and I live in the faith of the Son of God, I cast not away the grace of God, i.e., I do not repudiate it or show myself ungrateful: “The grace of God in me hath not been void, but I have labored more abundantly than all they” (1 Cor 15:10). Hence another version has, I am not ungrateful for the grace of God.” “Looking diligently lest any man be wanting to the grace of God” (Heb 12:15), i.e., by showing myself unworthy because of ingratitude.

A form of repudiation and of ingratitude would exist, if I were to say that the Law is necessary in order to be justified. Hence he says, For if justice be by the law, then Christ died in vain, i.e., if the Law is sufficient, i.e., if the works of the Law suffice to justify a man, Christ died to no purpose and in vain, because He died in order to make us just: “Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust, that he might offer us to God” (1 Pet. 3:18). Now if this could have been done through the Law, the death of Christ would have been superfluous. But He did not die in vain or labor to no purpose, as it is said in Isaiah (49:4); because through Him alone came justifying grace and truth, as it is said in John (1:17). Therefore, if any were just before the passion of Christ, this too was through the faith of Christ to come, in Whom they believed and in Whose faith they were saved. (Chapter 2 - Patristic Bible Commentary.)

Thus, it is necessary for all men to have belief in Our Lord’s Redemptive Act on the wood of the Cross and that the graces which He won thereon and are administered into the hearts and souls of men through the loving hands of Our Lady, the Mediatrix of All Graces, by the power of God the Holy Ghost at work in the Catholic Church. Men must also pray for the graces necessary to cooperate with the graces they receive and persist therein until the moment they die. It is by being nailed to the Cross of the Divine Redeemer that we are made free, liberated.

The Mosaic Law kills.

The law of the New Covenant giveth life by means of Sanctifying Grace and is thus the one and only means of human salvation.

As to Victor Manuel Fernandez’s assertion that that is by the “impulse” of God in the hearts that men can be justified, one only needs to point out that he is not speaking about Sanctifying Grace as he, as a Modernist, believes that this “impulse” is “actuated” in the “hearts” of all men—Jews, Christians, Mohammedans, Buddhists, Hindus, Shintoists, Animists, Jains, Theosophists—even atheists, something that was specifically and categorically condemned as follows by Pope Saint Pius X, whose feast we celebrate today, Friday, September 3, 2021, in Pascendi Dominici Gregis:

14. Thus far, Venerable Brethren, We have considered the Modernist as a philosopher. Now if We proceed to consider him as a believer, and seek to know how the believer, according to Modernism, is marked off from the philosopher, it must be observed that, although the philosopher recognizes the reality of the divine as the object of faith, still this reality is not to be found by him but in the heart of the believer, as an object of feeling and affirmation, and therefore confined within the sphere of phenomena; but the question as to whether in itself it exists outside that feeling and affirmation is one which the philosopher passes over and neglects. For the Modernist believer, on the contrary, it is an established and certain fact that the reality of the divine does really exist in itself and quite independently of the person who believes in it. If you ask on what foundation this assertion of the believer rests, he answers: In the personal experience of the individual. On this head the Modernists differ from the Rationalists only to fall into the views of the Protestants and pseudo-mystics. The following is their manner of stating the question: In the religious sense one must recognize a kind of intuition of the heart which puts man in immediate contact with the reality of God, and infuses such a persuasion of God’s existence and His action both within and without man as far to exceed any scientific conviction. They assert, therefore, the existence of a real experience, and one of a kind that surpasses all rational experience. If this experience is denied by some, like the Rationalists, they say that this arises from the fact that such persons are unwilling to put themselves in the moral state necessary to produce it. It is this experience which makes the person who acquires it to be properly and truly a believer.

How far this position is removed from that of Catholic teaching! We have already seen how its fallacies have been condemned by the Vatican Council. Later on, we shall see how these errors, combined with those which we have already mentioned, open wide the way to Atheism. Here it is well to note at once that, given this doctrine of experience united with that of symbolism, every religion, even that of paganism, must be held to be true. What is to prevent such experiences from being found in any religion? In fact, that they are so is maintained by not a few. On what grounds can Modernists deny the truth of an experience affirmed by a follower of Islam? Will they claim a monopoly of true experiences for Catholics alone? Indeed, Modernists do not deny, but actually maintain, some confusedly, others frankly, that all religions are true. That they cannot feel otherwise is obvious. For on what ground, according to their theories, could falsity be predicated of any religion whatsoever? Certainly it would be either on account of the falsity of the religious sense or on account of the falsity of the formula pronounced by the mind. Now the religious sense, although it maybe more perfect or les perfect, is always one and the same; and the intellectual formula, in order to be true, has but to respond to the religious sense and to the believer, whatever be the intellectual capacity of the latter. In the conflict between different religions, the most that Modernists can maintain is that the Catholic has more truth because it is more vivid, and that it deserves with more reason the name of Christian because it corresponds more fully with the origins of Christianity. No one will find it unreasonable that these consequences flow from the premises. But what is most amazing is that there are Catholics and priests, who, We would fain believe, abhor such enormities, and yet act as if they fully approved of them. For they lavish such praise and bestow such public honor on the teachers of these errors as to convey the belief that their admiration is not meant merely for the persons, who are perhaps not devoid of a certain merit, but rather for the sake of the errors which these persons openly profess and which they do all in their power to propagate.

15. There is yet another element in this part of their teaching which is absolutely contrary to Catholic truth. For what is laid down as to experience is also applied with destructive effect to tradition, which has always been maintained by the Catholic Church. Tradition, as understood by the Modernists, is a communication with others of an original experience, through preaching by means of the intellectual formula. To this formula, in addition to its representative value they attribute a species of suggestive efficacy which acts firstly in the believer by stimulating the religious sense, should it happen to have grown sluggish, and by renewing the experience once acquired, and secondly, in those who do not yet believe by awakening in them for the first time the religious sense and producing the experience. In this way is religious experience spread abroad among the nations; and not merely among contemporaries by preaching, but among future generations both by books and by oral transmission from one to another. Sometimes this communication of religious experience takes root and thrives, at other times it withers at once and dies. For the Modernists, to live is a proof of truth, since for them life and truth are one and the same thing. Thus we are once more led to infer that all existing religions are equally true, for otherwise they would not survive. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Pope Saint Pius X amplified his teaching against the Modernist propositions in The Oath of Against Modernism, September 1, 1910, which, just incidentally, you understand, was suppressed by Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI in 1967:

I hold with certainty and I sincerely confess that faith is not a blind inclination of religion welling up from the depth of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the inclination of a morally conditioned will, but is the genuine assent of the intellect to a truth that is received from outside by hearing. In this assent, given on the authority of the all-truthful God, we hold to be true what has been said, attested to, and revealed, by the personal God, our creator and Lord.” (Pope Saint Pius X, The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910.)

It does take a lettered theologian with a licentiate from a pontifical university to understand that Pope Saint Pius X was condemning the likes of the conciliar “popes” and their theological “experts” such as Victor Manuel Fernandez, all to tickle the itching ears of non-Catholics with one condemned fable after another.

Pope Saint Pius X to Theodore Herzl: We Will Baptize You All

The appendix below reprises a long selection from William Thomas Walsh’s Philip II concerning the efforts of the Jews to infiltrate the Catholic Church in thoroughly Catholic Spain and elsewhere in Europe, taking particular care to document how various Jews sought the confidence of Martin Luther and then plied him with falsehoods that became the foundation of his break from the Catholic Church to the ruin of the salvation of men and the ongoing ruin of nations founded on the rocky ground of the anti-Incarnational, Judeo-Masonic precepts of Modernity that rose up in the wake of Luther’s revolt which they had inspired and then helped to propagate.

It was no less “evangelical” fervor that the founder of international Zionism, Theodore Herzl, sought to influence Protestants at the end of the Nineteenth Century and the beginning of the Twentieth Century to see the New Testament through the lens of Zionism, thus completing the circle that had begun with those who had influenced Martin Luther.

Father Louis J. Campbell, who has the pastor of Saint Jude Shrine in Stafford, Texas,  since 2001 and who celebrates his sixtieth anniversary of priestly ordination on this very day, Friday, September 3, 2001, explained the influence of Herzl on Protestant “Scripture” “experts” in his day, an influence that lives on today in almost every Protestant sect under the face of the sun to the extent that there is even a Protestant organization called “Christians for Israel”:

Since the time of the Apostles, the Holy Catholic Church has preached the Gospel by the authority granted it by Jesus Christ. The Church was preaching the Gospel years before the Four Gospels were written down, and has continued to this day to fulfill Our Lord’s command to “preach the gospel to every creature” (Mk.16:15). 

The Church collected the Scriptures that make up the Bible. But the heretic, Martin Luther (1483-1546), weeded out some of the books of the Bible he didn’t like, and the Protestant version of the Bible was born. The Bible itself was then touted as the sole authority subject to the “private interpretation” of the believer, thus denying the Church’s authority to preach the Gospel and interpret the Scriptures. However, it seems “the believers” are willing to believe much that is not to be found in the Bible.

No doubt many of us are puzzled by the strange phenomenon of Christian Zionism. Many Evangelical Christians, like the Baptists, the Pentecostals and the Charismatics, are enthusiastic supporters of Jewish Zionism, although not all Jews are Zionists, and many of them dispute the Zionist claims.

The Jewish Zionist Movement was founded by Theodor Herzl in 1897. Its chief aim was the creation of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the “Land of Israel” in the Bible. The Temple would eventually be rebuilt, and the ancient religious rites resumed. Since they believe they have a right to the lands promised to Abraham by God, the Zionists have little sympathy for the Palestinians, who were squeezed into the West Bank and the Gaza strip after the creation of the Jewish State of Israel in 1948. Misusing Old Testament Scriptures, the Jewish Zionists believe they are destined to rule the world.

So what could have turned famous Protestant preachers like Billy Graham, Hal Lindsay, John Hagee and Pat Robertson, into Christian Zionists, enthusiastic supporters of the aims of Jewish Zionism? Could it have been – the Scofield Bible?

The Scofield Reference Bible is widely used in Protestant seminaries, especially among Evangelicals, such as Baptists, Pentecostals and Charismatics. Recently someone sent me an article by a Mr. C.E. Carlson about the Scofield Bible, which seems to get to the root of the problem. Much of what follows is from Mr. Carlson (http://www.serendipity.li/zionism/carlson01.htm). 

One of the schemes of the Jewish Zionists was to alter the Christian view of Zionism by creating and promoting a pro-Zionist subculture within Christianity. One Cyrus I. Scofield (1843-1921) was funded by Zionist agents to re-write the King James Version of the Bible by inserting Zionist-friendly notes in the margins, between verses and chapters, and on the bottoms of the pages. It was first published in 1909 by Oxford University Press, which still holds the copyright. 

 Scofield produced a revolutionary book that radically changed the context of the King James Version. Oxford's promoters made the Scofield Bible, with its Christian Zionist footnotes, a standard for interpreting scripture in Christian churches, seminaries, and Bible study groups. And they all followed like sheep – even Hagee, Lindsay, Robertson, Van Impe, and the revered Billy Graham. So much for private interpretation!

After Scofield’s death, the Oxford University Press turned the Scofield Bible into a manual for the Christian worship of the State of Israel. Scofield’s un-Christian anti-Arab theology has permitted the theft of Palestine and 54 years of death and destruction against the Palestinians, with hardly a complaint from the Judeo-Christian mass media evangelists or most other American church leaders, including the so-called U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

In his Epistle to the Galatians, St. Paul contradicts the claims of the Scofield Bible:

“The promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. He does not say, ‘And to his offsprings,’ as of many; but as of one, ‘And to his offspring,’ who is Christ… For you are all the children of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all who have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither slave nor freeman; there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are the offspring of Abraham, heirs according to promise” (Gal.3:15b,16;26-29).

This makes it clear that to be a blood relative descended from Abraham is of no advantage to those who do not have faith in Jesus Christ. And Scofield and the Oxford University Press are liars when they try to prove that those who are known today as “Jews” are the heirs to the promises of Abraham. We read this whopper on page 1136 of the 1967 edition: “All Jews are natural descendants of Abraham…”  

This is absolutely false and absurd. The great majority of the so-called Jews who control Israel today are not descendants of Abraham at all. They are the Ashkenazi Jews, descendants of the Khazars of Eastern Europe. They are imposters, with no right to the lands of the Bible! Although known as “Jews” they are such neither by blood nor by religion, because the Jewish religion their ancestors adopted in the eighth century is not the true religion of the ancient Jews of the time of Christ, but the false Talmudic Judaism which blasphemes Jesus Christ and deifies the Jewish race.

And on page 19 we find this blatant lie: “God made an unconditional promise of blessings through Abram’s seed… to the Nation of Israel to inherit a specific territory forever.

What a deception! The televangelists and their huge following have accepted this abominable lie, and have led the whole country into vassalage to the Godless modern State of Israel. Jesus Christ is Abraham’s heir, not the State of Israel. The promises God made to Abraham are fulfilled in Jesus Christ. The Jewish Zionists have no true understanding of the Scriptures. And who would have thought that the “Bible believing Christians” would have stumbled after them into the darkness? 

“Did you never read in the Scriptures,” said Our Lord to the Pharisees: “‘The stone which the builders rejected, has become the corner stone; by the Lord this has been done, and it is wonderful in our eyes’? Therefore I say to you, that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and will be given to a people yielding its fruits” (Mt.21:42,43).

St. Paul understood it well:

“You are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus himself as the chief corner stone. In him the whole structure is closely fitted together and grows into a temple holy in the Lord, in him you too are being built together into a dwelling place for God in the Spirit” (Eph.2:20-22).  (Father Louis J. Campbell, Seventh Sunday after Pentecost.)

The notion that the people who threw out the Palestinians from their homes and dispossessed them of their belongings as many of them were herded into the Zionist equivalent of concentration camps, termed euphemistically as "relocation camps," in 1948 and thereafter represent the Abrahamic Jews of the Old Testaments is false. Most of those Jews who settled in Palestine between the two world wars and after World War II are not descendents of Abraham nor are they Jews by blood. Most of these modern day Talmudists are descendants of the Asiatic Khazars who converted to Talmudism:

Jesus Christ is the Great Prophet foretold by Moses, Whom all nations and peoples must hear and obey, lest they be "destroyed from among the people." Jesus was not a mere prophet, like Moses, Jeremiah, or Isaiah. In Jesus there resided the prophetic gift in all its fullness. When God speaks, we must listen in fear and trembling (cf. Isaias 66:5).

Though they have rejected the Great Prophet, the Jews still think that the promises made to Abraham are theirs, and that all the lands promised to the ancient Israelites are theirs by right, and will be theirs in fact. This means that no one else who occupies these lands, be they Palestinians, Lebanese, or whatever, have any rights, and that they can be dispossessed of the lands they have occupied for millennia. The ancient Israelites, whose heirs they imagine themselves to be, were commanded by God to exterminate the Philistines, were they not? And who are the descendants of the Philistines? Why, the Palestinians and the Lebanese, of course! Their rights can be ignored with impunity.

Then there are those of the Christian Fundamentalist Right in the Unites States, the Christian Zionists, who support Israeli claims, egged on by such false prophets as Jerry Falwell, Hal Lindsey, Jack Van Impe, and John Hagee. Thousands of evangelical Christians recently arrived from all 50 states in Washington, where they have enormous political influence, for the first annual summit of Christians United for Israel, Hagee being the main organizer. 

For the first time in the history of Christianity in America," Hagee said, "Christians will go to the Hill to support Israel as Christians." They will urge the US government "not to restrain Israel in any way in the pursuit of Hamas and Hezbollah… We want our Congress to make sure that not one dime of American money goes to support Hamas and Hezbollah or the enemies of Israel."

Then Hagee declares: "When they see what's going on in the Middle East, a whole range of enemies arrayed against God's people, they see God's word being played out on their television sets. They see Israel triumphing over its enemies as proof that God's promises remain" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/5193092.stm).

It is as if Jesus Christ never came and established a New Covenant in His Blood, and founded the Holy Catholic Church. God's promises were fulfilled in Jesus Christ and in those who follow Him. Hagee, and those like him, have an Old Testament theological viewpoint, and have betrayed Jesus Christ, in Whom the Scriptures are fulfilled. Who are God's people but those who have believed in His word and obey His commands, whether Jews or not? According to St. Paul, "There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither slave nor freeman; there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are the offspring of Abraham, heirs according to promise" (Galatians 3:28,29).

The Jews are children of Abraham according to the flesh only, natural descendants. Some of them, that is. Are those whom we call Jews today the descendants of the Jews who were dispersed among the nations after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D., or even of the ten tribes that were carried off into captivity by the ancient Assyrians in 721 B.C.? On the contrary, most Jews today are the so-called Ashkenazi Jews, descended from the ancient Khazars of Eastern Europe. Despite their prominence in the Jewish community they do not have Jewish blood, but were converted to Judaism in the ninth century. They do not have Jewish blood, and they follow the modern Jewish Talmudic religion. How does that make them "God's people," and the "inheritors of the promises"?

On May 14, 1948, on the day in which the British Mandate over Palestine expired, the Jewish People's Council gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum and declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The new state was recognized that night by the United States, and three days later by the USSR. The Vatican, out of concern for the safety of the Holy Places and the rights of the Palestinians, many of whom are Catholic, did not recognize the modern state of Israel until John Paul II, fervently pro-Jewish, gave it official Vatican recognition on April 20, 1984.

Contrary to what the Jewish Zionists expect, they will not reign as masters of the world from Jerusalem. The servile nations will not come to Mount Zion bearing gifts. Pray for the Jews! They will be all but exterminated except for the remnant who will turn to Jesus Christ and be saved.

And contrary to what the Christian Zionists expect, the Temple will not be rebuilt, and 144,000 Jews will not be converted to reign with Jesus Christ from the Temple in Jerusalem for a thousand years. (Father Louis Campbell, "And I Saw No Temple Therein". For a listing of John Hagee’s anti-Catholic statements over the years, see Hagee In His Own Words)

Yes, the notion of the current "Talmudists" as the Jews of the Old Testament is entirely invented. 

The Zionist State of Israel is entirely invented out of the fantasies of Theodore Herzl, the founder of International Zionism, to relocate the Talmudists in the very land from which the actual descendants of Abraham were expelled by the Romans in 70 A.D. as God used the pagan Romans as the instrument to chastise the Jews for their obstinate refusal to accept the preaching of the Gospel in their midst after He had mercifully permitted them a thirty-seven year period of reprieve following their role in calling down the Most Precious Blood of Our Divine Redeemer, Christ the King, upon them and their children. God expelled the Jews from the Holy Land in 70 A.D., and they were not meant to return, certainly not to found a nation based in a false, blasphemous religion, less yet to do so by violent means and the constant use of raw terror and the murder of countless thousands of innocent Palestinian Arabs, both Christians and Mohammedans, thus engendering an endless cycle of hatred and violence.

Well, the Talmudists of our own day infiltrated the Catholic Church in the years before the election of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII on October 28, 1958, the Feast of Saints Simon and Jude, and have engineered a false theology about them and the “validity” of the Mosaic Covenant that is a foundational cornerstone of the whole conciliar enterprise.

Contrary to the obsequiousness of the lords of conciliarism that they exhibited in their submission to the descendants of the ancient enemies of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His Catholic Church, Pope Saint Pius X manfully told Theodore Herzl that Judaism was no long valid and that the Jews had to convert to the true Church.

Let me remind you once again, therefore, of the following exchange between Theodore Herzl and Pope Saint Pius X that took place on the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul the Apostle, January 25, 1904:

HERZL: Yesterday I was with the Pope [Pius X]. . . . I arrived ten minutes ahead of time, and without having to wait I was conducted through a number of small reception rooms to the Pope. He received me standing and held out his hand, which I did not kiss. Lippay had told me I had to do it, but I didn’t. I believe this spoiled my chances with him, for everyone who visits him kneels and at least kisses his hand. This hand kiss had worried me a great deal and I was glad when it was out of the way.

He seated himself in an armchair, a throne for minor affairs, and invited me to sit by his side. He smiled in kindly anticipation. I began:

HERZL: I thank Your Holiness for the favor of granting me this audience. [I begged him to excuse my miserable Italian, but he said:

POPE: No, Signor Commander, you speak very well.

HERZL: [He is an honest, rough-hewn village priest, to whom Christianity has remained a living thing even in the Vatican. I briefly laid my request before him. But annoyed perhaps by my refusal to kiss his hand, he answered in a stern categorical manner.

POPE: We are unable to favor this movement [of Zionism]. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem—but we could never sanction it. The ground of Jerusalem, if it were not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church I cannot answer you otherwise. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people.

HERZL: [The conflict between Rome and Jerusalem, represented by the one and the other of us, was once again under way. At the outset I tried to be conciliatory. I said my little piece. . . . It didn’t greatly impress him. Jerusalem was not to be placed in Jewish hands.] And its present status, Holy Father?

POPE: I know, it is disagreeable to see the Turks in possession of our Holy Places. We simply have to put up with it. But to sanction the Jewish wish to occupy these sites, that we cannot do.

HERZL: [I said that we based our movement solely on the sufferings of the Jews, and wished to put aside all religious issues].

POPE: Yes, but we, but I as the head of the Catholic Church, cannot do this. One of two things will likely happen. Either the Jews will retain their ancient faith and continue to await the Messiah whom we believe has already appeared—in which case they are denying the divinity of Jesus and we cannot assist them. Or else they will go there with no religion whatever, and then we can have nothing at all to do with them. The Jewish faith was the foundation of our own, but it has been superceded by the teachings of Christ, and we cannot admit that it still enjoys any validity. The Jews who should have been the first to acknowledge Jesus Christ have not done so to this day.

HERZL: [It was on the tip of my tongue to remark, “It happens in every family: no one believes in his own relative.” But, instead, I said:] Terror and persecution were not precisely the best means for converting the Jews. [His reply had an element of grandeur in its simplicity:]

POPE: Our Lord came without power. He came in peace. He persecuted no one. He was abandoned even by his apostles. It was only later that he attained stature. It took three centuries for the Church to evolve. The Jews therefore had plenty of time in which to accept his divinity without duress or pressure. But they chose not to do so, and they have not done it yet.

HERZL: But, Holy Father, the Jews are in a terrible plight. I do not know if Your Holiness is aware of the full extent of their tragedy. We need a land for these harried people.

POPE: Must it be Jerusalem?

HERZL: We are not asking for Jerusalem, but for Palestine—for only the secular land.

POPE: We cannot be in favor of it.

[Editor Lowenthal interjects here] Here unrelenting replacement theology is plainly upheld as the norm of the Roman Catholic Church. Further, this confession, along with the whole tone of the Pope in his meeting with Herzl, indicates the perpetuation of a doctrinal emphasis that has resulted in centuries of degrading behavior toward the Jews. However, this response has the “grandeur” of total avoidance of that which Herzl had intimated, namely that the abusive reputation of Roman Catholicism toward the Jews was unlikely to foster conversion. Further, if, “It took three centuries for the Church to evolve,” it was that very same period of time that it took for the Church to consolidate and launch its thrust of anti-Semitism through the following centuries.

HERZL: Does Your Holiness know the situation of the Jews?

POPE: Yes, from my days in Mantua, where there are Jews. I have always been in friendly relations with Jews. Only the other evening two Jews were here to see me. There are other bonds than those of religion: social intercourse, for example, and philanthropy. Such bonds we do not refuse to maintain with the Jews. Indeed we also pray for them, that their spirit see the light. This very day the Church is celebrating the feast of an unbeliever who became converted in a miraculous manner—on the road to Damascus. And so if you come to Palestine and settle your people there, we will be ready with churches and priests to baptize all of you.

HERZL: [At this point Conte Lippay had himself announced. The Pope bade him be admitted. The Conte kneeled, kissed his hand, and joined in the conversation by telling of our “miraculous” meeting in the Bauer beerhall at Venice. The miracle was that he had originally intended to stay overnight in Padua, and instead, it turned out that he was given to hear me express the wish to kiss the Holy Father’s foot. At this the Pope made no movement, for I hadn’t even kissed his hand. Lippay proceeded to tell how I had expiated on the noble qualities of Jesus Christ. The Pope listened, and now and then took a pinch of snuff and sneezed into a big red cotton handkerchief. It is these peasant touches which I like about him best and which most of all compel my respect. Lippay, it would appear, wanted to account for his introducing me, and perhaps ward off a word of reproach. But the Pope said:

POPE: On the contrary, I am glad you brought me the Signor Commendatore.

HERZL: [As to the real business, he repeated what he had told me, until he dismissed us:]

POPE: Not possible!

HERZL: [Lippay stayed on his knees for an unconscionable time and never seemed to tire of kissing his hand. It was apparent that this was what the Pope liked. But on taking leave, I contented myself with shaking his hand warmly and bowing deeply. The audience lasted about twenty-five minutes. While spending the last hour in the Raphael gallery, I saw a picture of an Emperor kneeling before a seated Pope and receiving the crown from his hands. That’s how Rome wants it.]   (Marvin Lowenthal, Diaries of Theodore Herzl, pp. 427- 430.)

Not exactly how the conciliar "popes" have spoken to the adherents of the Talmud whenever they have permitted themselves to have been treated as inferiors in Talmudic synagogues and as Talmudic choirs have sung about how the Talmudic Jews of today are "waiting for the Messiah," now is it?

Oh, no. Pope Saint Pius X sought the conversion of souls, making no accommodations to the nonexistent legitimacy of false religions. Jorge Mario Bergoglio was a regular visitor of Talmudic synagogues in Argentina and has done so as “Pope Francis” in Rome on January 17, 2017. Remember also that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI visited three of them, including one in Rome itself (see Saint Peter and Anti-Peter).

The ”chief rabbinate” of Israel have nothing at all to fear with their friend at the Casa Santa Marta, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, as he is as scoffing of Pope Saint Pius X as the first in the current line of antipopes, Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII.

Concluding Remarks

Writing in the Irish Ecclesiastical Record  in 1929, the late Father Edward Cahill, S.J., the great champion of the Social Reign of Christ the King who wrote The Framework of the Christian State and was a contemporary of Father Denis Fahey, C.S.Sp., provided a good history of the influence of Talmudic influence in Freemasonry. Father Cahill’s series of articles in the Irish Ecclesiastical Record were subsequently published as a book under the title of Freemasonry and the anti-Christian Movement.

Faher Cahill explained the ultimate goal of Talmudists was to infilitrate the Catholic Church as Theodore Herzl, the founder of International Zionism, had done with Protestant sects with great success first of all by creating reliable agents from within who would work to supress Catholic docrine before replacing it with the Judeo-Masonic ethos. It was in recognitition of this insidious goal that the Holy Office issued a condemnation of the Friends of Israel in 1928, something that Father Cahill discussed in his collected series of articles:

On March 28, 1928, the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office issued an important decision of the Holy See on ‘the nature and purpose of the Association called Friends of Irsael and on the pamphlet entitled Pax super Israel, edited by the directors of the Association. Although ‘many priests, bishops and even cardinal gave their adhesion to this association,’ the Sacred Congregation condemns and completely suppresses it, by reason of ‘its mode of acting and speaking which is out of harmony with the traditional sense of the Church, the mind of the Fathers and even the Sacred liturgy itself.

The secularist Press, which is mostly controlled by the great Jewish financiers, immediately showed its appreciation for the importance of the decree by striving in the decree by striving to misrepresent it as a gesture of disapproval on the part of the Holy See of Catholic anti-masonic writes, whereas the contrary is the case. The decree is an authoritative reassertion of the traditional attitude of the Church towards the Jewish people. The Church desires sincerely the conversion of the Jews to the true Faith. But she cannot compromise with them any more than she can with the Modernists or even with the so-called Anglo-Catholics. Hence, in the present decree, the Holy See takes measures against the Masonic and Jewish infiltrations into the Church, which were being attempted through the medium of the condemned association and pamphlet. On the other hand she also reprobates as contrary to the Christian spirit and teaching Anti-Semitism, properly so-called, just as she reprobates anti-Germanism or any other similar anti-ism that would imply ‘racial or national hatred.’ But to follow the direction of Leo XIII and ‘tear away the mask from Freemasonry and let it be seen as it really is,’ is not anti-Semitism even when Freemasons in question are Jews; and needless to say, the Holy See does not follow the example of the Masonic sectaries in misapplying the term. (Father E. Cahill, S.J., “Freemasonry: VI: The Jewish Element in Freemasonry, Irish Ecclesiastical Record, 1929.)

First, Father Cahill pointed out Holy Office had suppressed the “Friends of Israel” association because it had a “mode of acting and speaking which is out of harmony with the traditional sense of the Church, the mind of the Fathers and even the Sacred liturgy itself.” Yet it is that the counterfeit church of conciliarism has adopted this very mode of “acting and speaking” in a manner that is “out of harmony with the traditional sense of the Church, the mind of the Fathers and even the Sacred liturgy.” Father Cahill defended Catholic doctrine. The conciliarists promote that which is anti-Christ, placing them in league with the Talmudists, who have long sought to eradicate all mention of the Holy Name of Jesus from public life, which is precisely tha Bergoglio did yesterday save for those three references to "Jesus" without referring to Him as Our Lord Jesus Christ. Is it any accident that the Argentine Apostate almost never uses that reverent manner of speaking about the Divine Redeemer?

Second, Father Cahill pointed out that the decree of the Holy Office against the Friends of Israel association defended Catholic doctrine concerning the Jews that has been abandoned by the conciliarists, who have termed it “anti-Semitic” even to speak about any necessity of seeking the conversion of the Jews to the true Faith before they die or to oppose their schemes for the further de-Christianization.

Consider the following words once again:

The decree is an authoritative reassertion of the traditional attitude of the Church towards the Jewish people. The Church desires sincerely the conversion of the Jews to the true Faith. But she cannot compromise with them any more than she can with the Modernists or even with the so-called Anglo-Catholics. Hence, in the present decree, the Holy See takes measures against the Masonic and Jewish infiltrations into the Church, which were being attempted through the medium of the condemned association and pamphlet.  (Father E. Cahill, S.J., “Freemasonry: VI: The Jewish Element in Freemasonry, Irish Ecclesiastical Record, 1929.)

Have the conciliar “popes” sought the conversion of the Jews?

Indeed, we have been by the likes of conciliar revolutionaries that the Catholic Church the Jews, who somehow get to be “saved” all on their own. Putative “popes” have gone into Talmudic synagogues content to be treated as inferiors as they have treated this false religion with respect and esteemed its symbols that belong to the devil himself.

Moreover, the conciliar “popes” have indeed compromised with Talmudism and Anglicanism as they have promoted one Modernist precept after another, something that Father Cahill notes is impossible for the Catholic Church to do of her very Divine Constitution.

Why is it so difficult for those in the “resist while recognize” movement to understand and accept these truths.

Third, Father Cahill’s reminder that it is not anti-Semitic to seek the conversion of the Jews or to oppose the schemes of some of their number to blot out the Holy Name of our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and spit on His Sacred Deposit Faith and His Holy Church herself is very similar to one provided by Father Denis Fahey in 1949, eight years after his, Father Cahill’s, death:

It is not to “hate” anyone to seek their unconditional conversion to the true Faith or to oppose their schemes to undermine It and to persecute those who defend It despite their own sins and failings. Indeed, it is a Spiritual Work of Mercy to seek with urgency the unconditional of non-Catholics to the true Faith (see (see Chopped Liver No MoreTo Advocate Christ The King, Nothing Else and Chopped Liver No More Update).

Father Edward Cahill made the same point in the Irish Ecclesiastical Record in those series of articles that was published later as Freemasonry and the anti-Christian Movement:

We have already referred to Rationalism and Hermeticism (including Theosophy, Christian Scientism, Spiritism, etc.) as characteristic of the Masonic religion and philosophy, These, which are put forward as a substitute for real religion, are fast becoming more and more widespread in England and throughout the English-speaking world. They are the most powerful dissolvents of whatever elements of true Christianity are being attempted. This element is perhaps the most deadly and dangerous aspect of the whole Masonic movement; for it cuts deeper than anything into Christian life, whose very foundation it attacks.

The immediate aim of the practical policy of Freemasonry is to make its naturalistic principles effective in the lives of the people; and first of all to enforce them in every detail of public life. Hence its political and social programme includes:

(1) The banishment of religion from all departments of government, and from all public institutions; and as a mark of the triumph of this policy, the removal of the Crucifix and all religious emblems from the legislative assemblies, the courts of justice, the public hospitals, the schools and university colleges, etc. (Father Edward Cahill, S.J., Freemasonry and the anti-Christian Movement, Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, published originally by M. H. Gill and Son, Ltd., in Dublin, Ireland, 1930, and republished by Kessinger Legacy Reprints, pp. 156-157.)

It is very telling that the conciliar revolutionaries have applauded these “developments” as most of their own colleges and universities have divested themselves of official control of what is purported to be the Catholic Church and have removed the Crucifix and other religious emblems from most of their classrooms. Formerly Catholic hospitals have done the same. Indeed, many of them, participating fully in the medical industry’s manufactured, money-making myth of “brain death”, have merged with secular corporations. And most Catholics in public life are fully supportive of various evils under cover of the civil law, and none of them is reprobated by Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who, quite instead, praises those of them that he meets as “servants of the poor.”

To return to Father Cahill’s enumeration of the Judeo-Masonic program:

(2) The secularization of marriage.

(3) The establishment of a State system of so-called education which, at least in its primary stages, will be obligatory and conducted by the laity.

(4) Complete freedom of worship (at least for all except the true one.) (Father Edward Cahill, S.J., Freemasonry and the anti-Christian Movement, Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, published originally by M. H. Gill and Son, Ltd., in Dublin, Ireland, 1930, and republished by Kessinger Legacy Reprints, p. 157.)

Catholics will the good of all men, the ultimate expression of which is the salvation of their immortal souls as members of the Catholic Church.

God is not mocked:

[1] Brethren, and if a man be overtaken in any fault, you, who are spiritual, instruct such a one in the spirit of meekness, considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. [2] Bear ye one another's burdens; and so you shall fulfill the law of Christ. [3] For if any man think himself to be some thing, whereas he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. [4] But let every one prove his own work, and so he shall have glory in himself only, and not in another. [5] For every one shall bear his own burden.

[6] And let him that is instructed in the word, communicate to him that instructeth him, in all good things. [7] Be not deceived, God is not mocked.[8] For what things a man shall sow, those also shall he reap. For he that soweth in his flesh, of the flesh also shall reap corruption. But he that soweth in the spirit, of the spirit shall reap life everlasting. [9] And in doing good, let us not fail. For in due time we shall reap, not failing. [10] Therefore, whilst we have time, let us work good to all men, but especially to those who are of the household of the faith. (Galatians 6: 1-10.)

These words should prompt us to examine our consciences very thoroughly in order to prepare them to make a good, integral confession of our sins to a true priest as our own sins have mocked God, His Omnipotence, His Omniscience, His Justice and even His Mercy, which have too frequently presumed so casually, so that Our Lord will not speak to us at the Particular Judgment as He speak to the Jews in the passage from the Holy Gospel according to Saint John the Evangelist:

At that time, Jesus said to the crowds of the Jews: Which of you can convict Me of sin? If I speak the truth, why do you not believe Me? He who is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear is that you are not of God. The Jews therefore in answer said to Him, Are we not right in saying that You are a Samaritan, and have a devil? Jesus answered, I have not a devil, but I honor My Father, and you dishonor Me. Yet, I do not seek My own glory; there is One Who seeks and Who judges. Amen, amen, I say to you, if anyone keep My word, he will never see death. The Jews therefore said, Now we know that You have a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets, and You say, ‘If anyone keep My word he will never taste death.’ Are You greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? And the prophets are dead. Whom do You make Yourself? Jesus answered, If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing. It is My Father Who glorifies Me, of Whom you say that He is your God. And you do not know Him, but I know Him. And if I say that I do not know Him, I shall be like you, a liar. But I know Him, and I keep His word. Abraham your father rejoiced that he was to see My day. He saw it and was glad. The Jews therefore said to Him, You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham? Jesus said to them, Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I am. They therefore took up stones to cast at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out from the temple. (John 8: 46-49.)

Our Lord clearly proclaimed Himself to be God to the Jews in this discourse, and they did not believe Him. Well, it is perhaps more accurate to say that they did not want to believe Him as they, mere mortals, knew that believing in Him would mean an end their pretentiously cruel use of the Mosaic laws to lord it over others without regard for the spirit of those laws, which is why that they had to accuse Him of blasphemy. The leaders of the Jews refused to bend their knees before their very God, Whom they knew full well had said the following to Moses when charging him with the responsibility to liberate the Hebrew people from their captivity to the Egyptians:

[11] And Moses said to God: Who am I that I should go to Pharao, and should bring forth the children of Israel out of Egypt? [12] And he said to him: I will be with thee: and this thou shalt have for a sign, that I have sent thee: When thou shalt have brought my people out of Egypt, thou shalt offer sacrifice to God upon this mountain. [13] Moses said to God: Lo, I shall go to the children of Israel, and say to them: The God of your fathers hath sent me to you. If they should say to me: What is his name? what shall I say to them? [14] God said to Moses: I AM WHO AM. He said: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: HE WHO IS, hath sent me to you. [15] And God said again to Moses: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me to you: This is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. (Exodus 3: 1-15.)

The Jews knew that Our Lord was proclaiming Himself to be God. They knew also that He had performed miracles and had taught more authoritatively than anyone before Him. Blinded by their pride and their obstinacy, they, presaging the high priests and priestesses of the Judeo-Masonic world of Modernity, were constitutionally incapable of bowing down to acknowledge their very God when He appeared and spoke to them in the very Flesh.

Father Maurice Meschler explained the encounter as follows:

In proportion as He reveals Himself more fully, the Jews grow more bitter in their rage and hatred. We see their increasing irritation in their more and more frequent and excited contradiction; in the scorn and derision which now marks their retorts and with which they respond to our Lord’s prediction with regard to His decease (John viii. 22), here with far more malevolence than on the Feast of the Tabernacles (John vii. 35); lastly, in the open affront and curse which they hurl in His face before all the people, calling Him a Samaritan and a demoniac (John viii. 48, 52, vii. 20), Our Lord a more severe in His language, and upbraids them with very bitter truths, predicting their impatient death and temporal and eternal ruin (John vii. 34; viii. 44). The severe and humiliating defeat in connection with the adulterers must already have excited and exasperated these perverse hearts to the very utmost, and now that our Lord so unsparingly castigates their national and personal pride, their hatred and fury breaks out into a wild act of violence, and they wish to stone Him in the Temple. Our Saviour’s divine power alone frustrates their attempt. It is as though we see the combat between light and darkness actually before our eyes, and as if the word of St. John: “The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it” (i. 5) were here enacted in a living scene (Keppler). The Jews are not only the real adulterers, by their violation of the covenant with their God, but also His persecutors and murderers; they wish to stone their Messias in the midst of His Temple, and thus to extinguish the Light of the World with their own hands. How marvelouslly beautiful and majestic the figure of our Saviour appears against this dark background, in His calmness and self-possession, His childlike fidelity and love to His Father; in His pure zeal for the honour and mandate of His Heavenly Father; and lastly, in the courage He displays in the midst of the infuriated people, and in His divine power, since He does not flee or bend down to avoid the stones cast at Him, but simply withdraws from them like the light, which cannot be seized and stoned! The Godhead was His shield and refuge. But the situation had become so strained by the preceding events that a crisis was unavoidable. (Father Maurice Meschler, S.J., The Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ, The Son of God, in Meditations, Volume I, Freiburg Im Breisgau, 1928 Herder & Co., Publishers to the Holy Apostolic See, pp. 599-600.)

Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ clearly proclaimed Himself to be what He is, God in the very Flesh, and the Jews of His time did not want to believe Him.

Instead, of course, much like the Talmudists, Kabbalists, Zionists and other naturalists and rationalists of our day, the Jews who were denounced by Our Lord used epithets to try to distract the people from the fact that Truth Himself was announcing to them all that the time of the Old Covenant was coming to an end. The Jews preferred the blindness. So do most people, including most Catholics today, which is why career politicians, civil servant apparatchiks, lawyers, educators, talking heads and the other blathering, babbling naturalists of the commentariat class, scientists, medical “professionals,” leaders of multinational corporations and other businesses, bankers and others who become wealthy from charging usurious rates of interest to keep the peons who must purchase automobiles and other major expenses on credit in states of perpetual slave bondage and poverty can never see the truth about anything, especially on matters of life and death. Merchants of lies can never see the Divine impress in others, and they can never admit that there are truths that exist in the nature of things that do not depend upon human acceptance for their binding force and validity and that bind the consciences of all people at a times in all circumstances and in all places.

To be sure, each of us mocks Christ the King when we sin, when we make ourselves the arbiters of moral right and moral wrong, when we know what is right but prefer to sin (whether by thought, word, or deed), when we think that we do not need the graces that He won for us by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, to grow in virtue in this life and to persevere at all times in a state of Sanctifying Grace so as to be ready to meet Him as Our Divine Judge after we have died.

Let us not deceive ourselves.

We have been given the gift of the true Faith and yet we still sin, something that Our  Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ told Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque grieved His Sacred Heart:

The harsh treatment which He received from the Jews, Gentiles and heretics was indeed very painful to Him, but they were His open enemies. But could we ever thought it possible that those who recognize His benefits, that those who make profession of being faithful to Him, that His own children should not only be insensible to His benefits and in no way touched with compassion at the sight of the grief caused by such contempt, but that they should treat Him with contempt by their irreverences and sacrileges? Our Saviour might well say: "If pagans and Turks and infidels had treated Me so, I might have endured it." "for if my enemy had reviled me, I would verily have borne it". (Ps. 54:13), but that Christians, Catholics whom I have not only redeemed, but have fed and nourished with my Body and Blood, should have nothing but contempt for Me, that they should treat Me with ingratitude, is too much. "But thou a man of one mind, my guide and my familiar: who didst take sweetmeats together with me! (Ps. 54: 14-15)

What must be the sentiments of this most generous and tender Heart of Jesus which has so loved men, and which finds in the hearts of those men only coldness and contempt? "I am become a reproach among my enemies." (Ps. 30: 12). If after exposing Myself to the contempt and hatred of My enemies in the midst of the outrages which I suffer, I could at least find a large number of faithful friends who would console Me! But it is quite the contrary: "They that saw me without fled from me." (Ps. 30:12) The greater number, seeing that I have disguised Myself under the feeble appearance of bread in order to have the pleasure of dwelling among men, abandon Me and forget Me as a person who has no place in their hearts, "I am forgotten as one dead from the heart" (Ps. 30:13).  (Father John Croiset, The Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, republished by TAN Books and Publishers.)

It is important, therefore, to keep ever in our minds the fact that our sins caused Our Lord’s sufferings during His Passion Death when having to deal with the efforts of Talmudists to “demand” “answers” from that which they think is the Catholic Church. Catholics hate nothing other than the devil, his demons and the errors and heresies that they inspire in the minds and hearts of men. Most of all, though, believing Catholics hate their own sins.

This having been duly noted, it is no act of “hatred” of any kind to review the actual facts of salvation history and to explain that the Talmudists of today are as blind as were the Biblical Jews of Our Lord’s time. Catholics must perform the Spiritual and Corporal Works of Mercy, and one two of the Spiritual Works of Mercy are to instruct the ignorant and to correct the sinner.

Catholics will the good of all men, the ultimate expression of which is the salvation of their immortal souls as members of the Catholic Church.

Pope Pius XI explained in Ubi Arcano Consilio, December 23, 1922, that there is only one path to peace, Catholicism, not Judaism, not the ethos of Judeo-Masonry, not Mohammedanism, not Buddhism or Hinduism. Catholicism. Nothing else:

There exists an institution able to safeguard the sanctity of the law of nations. This institution is a part of every nation; at the same time it is above all nations. She enjoys, too, the highest authority, the fullness of the teaching power of the Apostles. Such an institution is the Church of Christ. She alone is adapted to do this great work, for she is not only divinely commissioned to lead mankind, but moreover, because of her very make-up and the constitution which she possesses, by reason of her age-old traditions and her great prestige, which has not been lessened but has been greatly increased since the close of the War, cannot but succeed in such a venture where others assuredly will fail.

It is apparent from these considerations that true peace, the peace of Christ, is impossible unless we are willing and ready to accept the fundamental principles of Christianity, unless we are willing to observe the teachings and obey the law of Christ, both in public and private life. If this were done, then society being placed at last on a sound foundation, the Church would be able, in the exercise of its divinely given ministry and by means of the teaching authority which results therefrom, to protect all the rights of God over men and nations.

It is possible to sum up all We have said in one word, "the Kingdom of Christ." For Jesus Christ reigns over the minds of individuals by His teachings, in their hearts by His love, in each one's life by the living according to His law and the imitating of His example. Jesus reigns over the family when it, modeled after the holy ideals of the sacrament of matrimony instituted by Christ, maintains unspotted its true character of sanctuary. In such a sanctuary of love, parental authority is fashioned after the authority of God, the Father, from Whom, as a matter of fact, it originates and after which even it is named. (Ephesians iii, 15) The obedience of the children imitates that of the Divine Child of Nazareth, and the whole family life is inspired by the sacred ideals of the Holy Family. Finally, Jesus Christ reigns over society when men recognize and reverence the sovereignty of Christ, when they accept the divine origin and control over all social forces, a recognition which is the basis of the right to command for those in authority and of the duty to obey for those who are subjects, a duty which cannot but ennoble all who live up to its demands. Christ reigns where the position in society which He Himself has assigned to His Church is recognized, for He bestowed on the Church the status and the constitution of a society which, by reason of the perfect ends which it is called upon to attain, must be held to be supreme in its own sphere; He also made her the depository and interpreter of His divine teachings, and, by consequence, the teacher and guide of every other society whatsoever, not of course in the sense that she should abstract in the least from their authority, each in its own sphere supreme, but that she should really perfect their authority, just as divine grace perfects human nature, and should give to them the assistance necessary for men to attain their true final end, eternal happiness, and by that very fact make them the more deserving and certain promoters of their happiness here below.

It is, therefore, a fact which cannot be questioned that the true peace of Christ can only exist in the Kingdom of Christ -- "the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ." It is no less unquestionable that, in doing all we can to bring about the re-establishment of Christ's kingdom, we will be working most effectively toward a lasting world peace. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.) 

Our Lady is the great foe of all heresies, including Modernism, whose rise was made possible by Protestantism and its alliance with Judeo-Masonry, and must pray to her that bishop after the true  pastoral heart and manly spirit of Pope Saint Pius X is restored to the Throne of Saint Peter sooner rather than later.

Pray to Our Lady daily for the conversion of all non-Catholics and for the conversion of the baptized Catholics who lead the counterfeit church of conciliarism after having fallen away from the bosom of Holy Mother Church by embracing every Protestant and Judeo-Masonic error imaginable. Indeed, it is not for nothing that Pope Saint Pius X referred to Modernism as "the synthesis of all heresies."

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a walking and nonstop talking Modernist who risks the eternal fires of hell if he, who has shown that he knows the teaching of the Catholic Church and hates it with an abiding visceral passion, does not himself convert before he dies. Christ the King died for his salvation. May our prayers to Our Lady help him to do so as it is a terrible thing for anyone, infidel, or heretic, to fall into the hands of the living God after having taught error boldly and with a confidence that is inspired by the adversary himself.

May we ever have recourse to Our Lady to pray for the conversion of all of those who are attacking the true Faith, including the aforementioned Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself and his fellow revolutionaries, and as we continue to pray each day for our own conversion away from our sins as we seek to offer up reparation for them to the throne of the Most Blessed Trinity as the consecrated slaves of her Divine Son, Christ the King, through her own most Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.\

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Rosary, 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 Pius X, pray for us.

Appendix A

From William Thomas Walsh’s Philip II Concerning the Jewish Influence on the Rise of Protestantism

In Spain to which Philip had returned, the instinct of a society to preserve itself had been sharpened by a keen awareness of the pattern of crucifixion running through the whole living epic of Christianity, especially in a country than had groaned and struggled under the violence of so many heretical movements. To the descendants of Iberian crusaders Protestantism was not the new and forward- looking institution that many of its new advocated in the north imagined. To Spaniard it was rather the recurrence of something as old as the Church.

The Spanish mystic felt about heresy as the Jews had always felt about idolatry. Against the iterated calvary of human endeavor he saw the eternal Christ as the heart, the foundation (as He said, the cornerstone) of the Catholic Church, the human member of the which might always be a fallible as the little group constituting the primitive Church – the materialistic and plausibly dishonest as Judas, as angry as James, as sluggish as Thomas, as uninteresting as Andrew, as ambitious as the youthful John, as rash and self-confident and mendacious, as penitent and long-suffering as Peter – this Church would welcome sinners worse than Mary Magdalen and publicans more despised than Levi before he was Saint Mathew; it would even stretch out its net to include rich Simon the Pharisee, if possible, and would pluck hard-handed centurions from under the eagles of Caesar redivivus a thousand times.

Nevertheless, in its vast and complex ramifications, as it grew to take in the whole world, there would always be a central and unchanging unity of doctrine, always the Holy Spirit, always Christ, daily renewed in the Eucharist. Also, in literal fulfillment of the prophecies of Christ, the hatred that had mocked, slandered and baited Him, misrepresented His teachings and actions, sought repeatedly to kill Him, and finally, by trickery, induced the power of Caesar to crucify Him – this too would always remain. There would always be a Caiaphas, the spiritually blind Abet Din, misleading the synagogue, always some crafty Anna, the Nasi or political Prince directing and corrupting the Sanhedrin. To these the Judases would flee when the Church rejected them, and these the Caesars of every age would use and despise. Even as good Jews would help furnish the sinews of the Church in many ages, so men remarkably like those scribes and pharisees whom Christ had called the children of the devil would perpetuate the hatred that had once crucified Incarnate Love.

No philosophy of history that leaves out of account this gigantic aspect of reality can be considered realistic. It is for this reason that the best hints for a philosophy of history may be found in the encyclicals of various Popes.

The intense hatred that Jesus foretold would follow all who sincerely believed in Him was manifested in the earliest days of the Church. When Saint Paul went to Rome to preach “One Lord, one faith, one baptism” he encountered such opposition from his own race that he somewhat bitterly wrote of “the Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us and please not God, and are adversaries to all men; prohibiting us to speak to the Gentiles, that they may be saved.” It must be noted however, that later on he sent a letter to the Christians at Rome sternly warning them against the wickedness of Jew-baiting. The Acts of the Apostles abundantly testify that most of the first Christian converts were Jews. Jews of good-will formed the sinews of the Church. Everywhere another type of Jew, perhaps in a small minority, refused even to listen to the arguments he condemned, and prevented well-meaning Jews, as well as Gentiles from hearing the Gospel.

The author of the Apocalypse, too, adverts more than once to the same astonishing concentration of hate that followed the children of Christ as they scattered through the Roman world: “I know thy tribulation, and thy poverty, but thou art rich; and thou art blasphemed by them that say they are Jews and are not, but are of the synagogue of Satan.” And “Behold I will bring a synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not but do lie. Behold, I will make them to come and adore  before thy feet. And they shall know that I have loved thee.” The first major persecution of Christians in the Gentile world, that of Nero, was probably set in motion at the instance of the Jews surrounding his wife Poppaea.

There were Judases in every age to attempt to pervert the Church from within. Not a few of the later scandals of Christendom were the result of their work. Simon Magus, perhaps a precursor of Gnosticism, was only the first to attempt to purchase the gifts of the Holy Ghost. Arius, the Catholic Jew, would yet made an insidious attack on the divinity of Christ that would divide the Christian world for centuries. Valentinus, called the chief of the Gnostics by Saint Irenaeus, was a Jew of Alexandria.

As the colossal struggle continued century after century, the chief means employed by the Annas and the Caiaphas of each age to keep the mass of the Jewish people in ignorance of the true nature of Christianity, and to fan their misunderstanding of it to hatred, was the Talmud. This melange of wisdom, tradition and superstition contained the most scurrilous and vindictive blasphemies against Christ. Wherever its true character became known, it was condemned by Christian authorities; as in France under Saint Louis, and in Rome under Pope Paul IV, who had thousands of copies burned. Yes it survived, to carry into the modern world the spirit of the Pharisees who rejected Christ, with those rabbinical interpretations which made it, as Lazare noted, “the creator of the Jewish nation and the mold of the Jewish soul.” The most vituperative parts were omitted in translation. In dangerous times they were handed down orally by the rabbis.

The historical importance of this book may be judged from the opinion of the Jewish historian Graetz, whose inaccuracies, omissions and wrong judgments have poisoned the whole Jewish world, but whose interpretations of that world cannot be ignored. He goes so far to say, “We can boldly assert that the war for and against the Talmud aroused German consciousness and created a public opinion without which the Reformation, like many other efforts, would have died in the hour of birth, or perhaps would never have been born at all.

In the Middle Ages it was customary for Jews to deny that the Talmud contained anti-Christian libels. Pretense in the modern world is no longer necessary. The Talmud is recognized as a sort of link between the early Gnostic onslaught on the Catholic Church, and the even more serious modern assault behind the mask of Freemasonry. Celsus the Gnostic may or may not have been a Jew. “Yet there are connections between Celsus and Judaism that must be emphasized,” says a Jewish authority; “for example, he asserts that Jesus was the illegitimate son of a certain Panthera, and again that he had been a servant in Egypt, not when a child as according to the New Testament, but when he was grown, and that he learned there the secret arts. These statements are frequently identical with those of the Talmud. Celsus might have heard this from the Jews.” From this it is not difficult to guess the source of the modern legend of freemasons seeking to disparage Christ the Redeemer in subtle fashion by claiming him as one of their “initiates.”

Another Jewish book that had a powerful effect not only on Jews but on the history of the world was the Kabbala. Originally that part of the Mosaic Law which was handed down by tradition, it had become by the thirteenth century, a collection of occult and esoteric doctrines borrowed from Buddhism, Gnosticism, the neo-Platonists and all manner of eastern pseudo-mystics. Out of the dark labyrinth of its imagery came many heresies and revolutions; rosicrucianism, theosophy, and all modern freemasonry. As Rabbi Benamozegh wrote, “It is quite certain that Masonic theology is at root nothing else than Theosophy, and that it corresponds to the theology of the Kabbala.” [Droleskey note: You don't think that Ivanka Trump Kushner's and Jared Kushner's practice of Kabbala matters? Think again.]

For a thousand years after she had emerged from the Catacombs – say roughly from the time of Constantine in the fourth century to the middle of the fourteenth – the Catholic Church successfully defended herself from such attacks both within and without. At times the very existence of the State and of society was threatened. In such crises, the Church not only permitted the use of force to avert worse evils, but even cooperated with it.

The Crusades were the defense of Christian homes, Christian women and children, Christian civilization, against an Islam deliberately bent upon exterminating them. A crusade ended the anti-social insanity of the Cathari who opposed marriage but taught suicide in that part of southern France known as Juea Secunda. The Inquisition followed them to Spain, and later saved the Christian Spanish State from the secret treachery of the pretended Catholics who were in league with the Moors in the war of liberation. As the ancient Jews had fought and slain idolaters, and had stoned spiritualists and similar dark heretics to death, so the Catholic Church, heir of the Jewish revelation, protected her children from destruction of body and soul while they were building the happiest and most balanced culture and civilization that have ever existed in this world.

The turning point in this vast drama (so far as our vantage point in time allows us to see) was the Black Death in 1346. It seemed to men as if Satan himself had burst the chains that had bound him for a thousand years. More than half the priests in the world died. Christendom was still staggering under this blow when other blows fee, one after another: the papal exile at Avignon, the Great Western Schism, the return of paganism under the guise of the Renaissance – all these onslaughts in the City of God itself while the Turks struck from without, gaining and laying waste on Christian country after another. Corruption and disorder were inevitable under these circumstances. Confusion became so widespread that only a divine institution could have survived it.

At the very moment when Columbus was claiming the new western world for Christianity and announcing the beginning of the Last Age of which he thought God had made him the harbinger, the stage was set for the most serious and widespread disaster the Church had yet had to face. It was something more important than the mere preaching of an exasperated monk against the abuse of indulgences; it was deeper than even the discontent of saintly men like More and Ignatius Loyola.

In the Protestant Revolt there was something more than the mere breaking away of the northern communities from the jurisdiction of Rome; much more that the nationalism to which Professor Carlton Hayes ascribes perhaps too much importance. There was a spirit of Protestantism in its first phase that sought something more than freedom; it sought nothing less (and this was more evident in Calvinism than in Lutheranism) than the utter destruction of the Catholic Church. Here was a hatred that began manifesting itself by the burning of churches and convents, the violation of nuns, the torture and execution of priests, the defiling of the Cross and the unspeakable desecration of the Blessed Sacrament.

It was an old and international hatred. It was the hatred of the church-burning Donatist, the hatred of Islam, the hatred that had opposed Saint Paul in Rome and Saint James in Jerusalem, the hatred of Annas and the scribes and pharisees crying, “Come down from the Cross, and we will believe!” There was nothing new about it except the form it took; but the preparation and organization were better, and the time was ripe.

Nor was this Protestant phase of the revolt a peculiarly northern or German product, though it has been convenient to make it appear so. It might have happened in southern Europe. In fact, it almost did happen in France, especially in southern France, before it happened in Germany. Lefevre, under the patronage of Marguerite of Angouleme and other of the anti-Catholic House of Navarre, taught justification by grace before Luther did, and profoundly influenced Beza, Farel, Rousel, and other leaders who passed quickly through a Lutheran phase to the more radical organization of Calvinism. The roots of the revolution went deeper that the German affair. It was not local, but international.

If we may believe Graetz and other Jewish historians, the Jews played a much more important part in all this than Christians, for some mysterious reason, have generally admitted. Incalculable was the number of this virile and gifted race who had settled in all countries of Europe during the so-called Dark Ages and the Middle Ages; incalculable the number who were assimilated as sincere Catholics, or who, as pretended Catholics, formed the nucleus for any international revolt. They were everywhere, in communication with one another and with the Jews of the Synagogue. There were so many of the latter in England and France that one Jewish writer of the sixteenth century, often cited by modern Jews, attributed to this fact, “the inclination of the English and the French” to Protestantism. Dispersion, secrecy and organization gave them a power out of all proportion to their numbers, a power so remarkable that Napoleon Bonaparte suspected that the political structure of the Jewish State had survived under cover for eighteen centuries. Was there any historical foundation for such a theory?

There may or may not be significance in the fact that the title of Nasi (Prince or King of the Jews) which belonged at the time of the Crucifixion to Annas, father-in-law of the High Priest, or Ab et Din, Caiaphas, was assumed by one of the bitterest, most intelligent and more persistent enemies of King Phillip II – Joseph Miques or Menes, the Jewish international banker of the Spice Trust of Portugal and Antwerp, who had in his debt William of Orange and many other noblemen of the Low Countries. About the time when Philip was returning to Spain, this millionaire was establishing himself in Turkey, throwing off the last pretense of Christianity and assuming the antique and princely title of Nasi.

He was not the first rich Jew after the dispersion to be so designated. Every now and then, like a bell-wether among the stray sheep of Israel, there appeared some grave and powerful man who took this title. There was, for example, the learned Jew of Babylon, Machir, who settled at Narbonne in the time of Charlemagne. If it is only a legend, as the Jewish Encyclopedia affirms that he was appointed head of the Jewish community by the Emperor at the request of the Calif Haroun al-Rashid, there is no doubt, according to the same authority, “that he soon acquired great influence over his coreligionists. It is not certain, however, whether he himself bore the title of Nasi (Prince or King of the Jews) as his descendants did, who continued to direct the affairs of the Jewish community.” There was, for instance, a Nasi Levi who presided over a meeting of delegated from all the Jewish communities in southern France in 1215, as Annas had presided over the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem.

Even then, among the Jewish communities of southern France, the anti-Christian Revolution was being silently prepared. Prosperity and wealth had reward the industry and intelligence of the exiles in Montpelier, Nimes, Tarbes, Carcassone – a score of places in that part of France where later the Huguenots would flourish – until they almost rivaled the medieval empery of their brethren in Spain. Slave-traders, purveyors of silks and other luxuries, usurers – they excelled generally in the commerce of intangibles, in the handling of money per se. Culture and power followed upon wealth. It was their great-tragedy that, having failed to understand Who Christ was, they could not get rid of the messianic consciousness for which they had been chosen and consecrated. Finding closed to them the only spiritual door to salvation, they were constantly driven to seek redemption in the here and now, in the resources of matter, in gold and power, in anything, anywhere but Christ. When all their kingdom had turned to dust in their patience hands, and the inevitable scourge of persecution came to scatter them again and again, they still followed leaders who kept them blind, and remained missionaries of what Saint John called “the spirit that dissolves Christ.”

In the thirteenth century, when the Catholic Church rejoiced in the full burgeoning of that rich and generous civilization she had reanimated and purified, the Jews were creating at Troyes a remarkable school of exegesis in which were being forged most of the arguments to be used by Protestant preachers against the Church and to be turned by the “higher critics” of later times aginst the heart of Christ Himself. The center and master of the group was a very rich Jew named Isaac Chatelain, better known now as Isaac of Troyes; a man learned in the Talmud, author of elegiac poems, endowed with many of the great Jewish virtues, such as deep and passionate loyalty to family and to race, but cursed with the intransigence of ancestors who perhaps had cried in a black hour, “His blood be upon us and our children.” He and his family incurred the wrath of the Christian populace, for the usual reasons. On Good Friday April twenty-fourth, 1288, the mode seized them, spurned their offers of gold and burned them.

The shocking holocaust avenged a long period of exploitation and of undermining of the foundation of Church and State. The heroism of some of the victims makes one regret the more that they were not in Italy, where the Pope or the hierarchy would undoubtedly have protected them. The wife of Isaac through herself into the flames. Her two sons and her son-in-law followed. Her two daughters also were burned, as was the wife of her son Alakadmenath, with Simeon the Scribe of Chatillon, Isaac Cohen, Baruch Tob Elem d-Avirey, and some others.

Rabbie Salamon, the son of this hapless Isaac, became famous inter the name of Raschi as founder of the Talmudic school of Champagne and the chief rival of Maimonides. Through Raschi the ideas of Isaac were transmitted to Protestantism. They were adopted early  in the fourteenth century by a Franciscan monk of Jewish descent, Nicholas of Lyra. The arguments of this Nicholas of Lyra powerfully influenced Luther, Calvin and Zwingli. “Raschi and the Toraphists made Nicholas of Lyra,”  wrote the nineteenth-century Christian apostate Renan, whose writings were financed and published by Jews, and who borrowed many of his brilliant sophistries from the arsenal of Narbonne, "and Nicholas of Lyra made Luther.” this has been said more wittily in the familiar epigram.

Si Lyra non lyrasset, Lutherus no saltasset.

Another Jew who did valiant spade work for Luther's sowing was Elias Levita, founder of the modern Hebrew grammar and teacher of many Christians. “He, with Jacob Loans and Obadiah Sforno,” observes a Jewish historian, “must be allowed a large share in producing the Protestant Reformation.” Sforno was the teacher of Reuchlin and many others. The so-called Reformation, adds Abrahams, “drew its life blood from a rational Hebraism.” Luther naturally employed Jews in preparing his German Bible. Jews were the most successful agents in the printing and distribution of Protestant Bibles and tracts in all parts of Europe.

Not only the ideas of Luther, but the very occasion for their dissemination, was furnished by the fertile activity of Jewish minds. The Battle of the Books, preliminary skirmish in the way of ideas about to commence at Wittenberg, could never have occurred if the Talmud and the Kabbala had not first done their deadly work. There sat on the throne of Saint Peter at that time a Pope, Leo X, for whom very little is to be said from the Catholic point of view, except that, like all the Popes, he was orthodox in his pronouncements on matters of faith and morals. He was also a patron of literature, music and art; the employer of Raphael.

His chief concern, however, was not the welfare, much less the needed reform, of the Church, but his own amusement and gratification. There is evidence in Leo's conduct to lend color to the assertion that on being elected, he remarked jovially, “Let us enjoy the Papacy, since God has given it to us.”

In the most critical and decisive age of the Church, this descendant of Florentine usurers, this son of Lorenzo de' Medici, kind and generous intellectual, Cardinal at thirteen, Pope at thirty-seven, was too busy with his pictures, his hunting and his plays to give sufficient attention to the ruin of the world. The Jews have always been well pleased with him. Like all the Medici, he surrounded himself with them and showered them with favor and protection, even to the extent of allowing the printing and dissemination of the Talmud, of whose true nature he was perhaps in ignorance. This genial collector, to whom Luther was only a joke, went to his death (too suddenly for the last sacraments) with little more than a suspicion of his own share in the business, not only by the abuses permitted in connection with indulgences, but by his long negligence and vacillation in the matter of the Jewish books.

Johann Reuchlin, a friend of Erasmus, started the famous Battle. Saturated, like young Pico della Miranola, with the imagery and fanatical theosophy of the Kabbala, which he imagined he understood, he urged all Christians to study this and other Jewish books, for a better understanding of their own religion. A Dominican of Cologne, Jakob Hochstraten, replied to him publicly in 1519, protesting against the notion that the pseudo-judaism of the Jewish mind in revolt against its own Messias could possible cast anything but a baleful light on Christianity. As the controversy continued, there entered into the lists against Reuchlin another Dominican monk, Johan Pfefferkorn. This man was a Jewish convert to the Faith. Graetz calls him, with more vigor that truth, “an ignorant, thoroughly vile creature, the scum of the Jewish people.” Reuchlin, who defended the Jewish books, was of course, “a pure, upright character,” with admirable love of truth and a soft heart.” The fact was the Pfefferkorn was a good sincere man, a none too brilliant student, who carried the zeal of the convert to the verge of fanaticism; his vileness apparently consisting of his being a true Jew in the sense in which the Apostles understood the term. He recognized the divinity of Christ and the untruthful obscenity of the Talmud. Urging the people of his race to turn from the man-made books of the rabbis to the living Christ in the Catholic Church, he defended the Jews, against the worst charges made against them, including the ritual murder accusation. This did not save him from the lasting enmity of the Annases of his day. As for Reuchlin, Graetz might have added that he had not only a soft heard but a rather soft head.

Pfefferkorn accused his, in a pamphlet called Handspiegel, of having been paid by the Jews to disseminate their propaganda. Reuchlin replied with a violent denial in his Augenspiegel and after further vituperation, pro and con, appealed to the Pope. By means of a flattering letter, he gained the favor of the influential Jew, Bonet de Lattes, physician to Pope Leo X. The physician naturally had no objection to interceding with the Holy Father in such a cause. The upshot was the pleasure-loving Pope handed over this mere squabble of monks, as he considered it, to the Bishop of Spires, a youth of twenty-seven, who in turn passed it on to Canon Truchsess, a disciple of Reuchlin; who gave the decision to his friend, completely exonerating the Augespiegel.

The more discerning friends of the Catholic Church were highly alarmed. The Inquisition, better aware from long experience of what was going on among the Jews, appealed from the verdic to the Pope. Leo summoned both disputants to Rome in 1514. delay followed delay, until Reuchlin, by a false statement, got the case transferred to another judge at Spires, who again exonerated him. Another appeal was filed. The Pope continued to delay, however, as various rich patrons of Reuchlin, and such liberal but not very profound Catholics as Erasmus, brought pressure to bear upon him; as did also the Emperor Maximilian I. It was not until the Lutheran bombshell exploded in 1517, on the hard-fought field of the Battle of the Books, that the real significance of Reuchlin's proposals became generally evident. Even then the easy-going Pope made no decision.

At last, in 1520 the finding at Spires were reversed. The Pope forbade the Augenspiegel as a scandalous and offensive book, unlawfully favorable to the Jews, and condemned Reuchlin to pay the costs of litigation. By that time it was too late to stop the avalanche. The young humanists were now united behind Reuchlin. One of them, Hutten, attacked even the Holy See. These men became the nucleus of Luther's party. The real anti-Christian Revolution (for such time would reveal it to be in essence) appeared full-panoplied on the stage of Christendom.

I have not been able to find any evidence to Dr. Margolis's assertion that Luther was drawn into the controversy on the side of Reuchlin, or of Lewis Browne's, echoing that of Hyamson, that Luther was “a disciple of Reuchlin.” If Reuchlin had never existed, Luther might well have challenged the preachings of Eck. What is certain is that the bull-necked Augustinian, who despaired of human nature because he could not at once achieve perfection in his cell, found the soil well ploughed for him for such men as Franz von Sickingen and other pupils of Reuchlin; without which he might have made no more disturbance than Huss or Wycliff had. What is equally certain, but strangely kept well in the background of most historical research, is that the Protestant Revolt, far from being an “advance” or a “progressive step,” was a long retrogression toward the moribund Judaism of the Pharisees of the time of Christ. Its multitudinous offspring of more than 200 sects would lead in the course of time to a return of the dismal skepticism of the Sadducees. Caiaphas was a Pharisee, Annas a Sadducee. It was old Annas, the Nasi, who would have the last word.

If there is exaggeration in that astonishing but almost unnoticed statement of Cabrera, himself of a Spanish Marrano family, that “most of the heresiarchs and heretics of this present century have been of those people.” it is beyond question, as a Jewish historian says, that the first leaders of the Protestant sects were called semi-Judaei, or half-Jews, in all parts of Europe.and that men of Jewish descent were as conspicuous among them as they had been among the Gnostics and would later be amog the Communists.

The origin of Calvin (whose real name was Chaurvin) is obscure, as is that of his chief aide and successor, Theodore Beza. But Farel, Rousel and others of the stormiest preachers who carried their propaganda through Europe were of Jewish descent. Michael Servetus may have been, and was certainly influenced by Jews. At Antwerp in 1566 the chief minister of the Calvinist synod, which was the center of the most telling Protestant intrigue and propaganda in the Netherlands, was a Spanish Jew.

Modern research by Jewish historians has made it clear that in the sixteenth century large numbers of the English Protestants (and doubtless the most active in propaganda and organization) were Jews who had put on the convenient mask of Calvinism at Antwerp. For example, “from an early period,” says Dr. Lucien Wolf, “the Marranos in Antwerp had taken an active part in the Reformation movement, and had given up their mask of Catholicism for a not less hollow pretense of Calvinism. The change will readily be understood. The simulation of Calvinism brought them new friends, who, like them, were enemies of Rome, Spain and the Inquisition. It helped them in their fight against the Holy Office, and for that reason was very welcome to them. Moreover, it was a form of Christianity which came nearer to their own simple Judaism. The result was that they became zealous and valuable allies of the Calvinists.”

There was something more in most Calvinists teaching than the desire for religious freedom and the reform of abuses. It was more like the ancient hatred which had followed the Catholic Church from her cradle, seeking not her reform but her utter destruction. Calvin himself was as ruthless in this regard as Mohammed. One of his letters to English Protestants declares that those who refuse to give up the Roman Catholic faith must be put to the sword. Calvinism quickly became an international movement, with a world capital at Geneva and with Calvin as a Pope ruling over a city with a regimentation uncomfortably suggestive of some totalitarian state of the future.

The most active intelligence, liaison officers and propagandists of this international army were the Jews. Only four years after Luther's first outburst, Cardinal Aleander, papal nuncio, reported that Jews were printing and circulating the German monk's books in Flanders. From the Netherlands they sent Bibles even to Spain, concealed in double-bottomed wine-casks. In Ferrara, a great Jewish financial center, they printed heretical bibles for distribution in Italy and elsewhere. No less a person than Carranza, now languishing in the prisons of the Inquisition in Spain, said that this was the reason why the church had to discourage the reading of the Bible in the vernaculars, save in approved versions. Even Jewish physicians and men of business were spies and propaganda agents. In the very year after Philip returned to Spain to stamp out Protestantism there, the Jewish Doctor Rodrigo Lopez, who was to find so unhappy an end in England, was passing over from Antwerp to London as a good Protestant.

A new spirit was abroad in the world, surely. It was not the regenerated Christian thing that Luther imagined it to be. It was the reappearance, in the most formidable array, of something older and far more terrible. The Cambridge Modern History tells us its effect was “to transfer the allegiance of the human spirit from clerical to civil authority,” or to put it more bluntly, to deliver Christ once more into the hands of Caesar. The Jewish historian Graetz expresses it otherwise: “the interest of the marketplace had driven the interests of the church into the background.” Is this not a way of saying that after the great betrayal the money changers were flocking back into the Temple from which they had been ousted by the medieval Church when she was most free and vigorous.

That was the thing, the old and evil thing, the insidious and destructive thing, that Philip was resolved to destroy, if possible, before it ruined the world. It would be far-fetched to say that he saw all its potentialities in 1559. He could hardly have seen what Pope Pius IX saw in 1849, when he declared that all the evils of the modern world (including Communism and its attendant miseries) had their origin in the tragic sixteenth-century assault on the Catholic Faith in the name of Protestantism.

Did Philip imagine, then, that the Jews were to blame for all the ills of humanity? Not even his bitterest enemies could fairly accuse him of that. A Jew-baiter in the vulgar sense he certainly was not. When an attempt was made to introduce into Spain an organization know as the Order of the White Sword aimed against Jews as Jews, he put his foot down against it.  He knew and employed too many excellent men of Jewish ancestry to be taken in by any stupid and vicious theory of “Nordic” or “Aryan” superiority. It must have been apparent to a man of his shrewd common sense (in most matters) that even those Jews who persisted in the iniquity of attempting to destroy the Church could have accomplished very little without collaboration from within, from unworthy Christians. It always takes a Judas to complete the work of Annas and Caiaphas. (William Thomas Walsh, Philip II, published originally in 1937 by Sheed and Ward and republished by TAN Books and Publishers, 1987, pp. 239-252.)

Appendix B

More About the Jewish Influence on the Rise of Protestantism

William Thomas Walsh’s Characters of the Inquistion summarized the decisive role of Talmudists in bringing about and then propagating the Protestant Revolution to overthrow the Social Reign of Christ the King an eradicate the Holy Name of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ from public view:

During the spectacular and fateful reign of Charles the Fifth, the Spanish Inquisition became so inactive that its enemies began to take its early death for granted. Charles, who was elected German Emperor soon after becoming King of Spain, and while still a youth crowned an extraordinary good fortune by marrying the most beautiful woman in Europe, seemed too powerful a monarch to have to worry about a few heretics here and there; moreover, he was by nature trusting, tolerant and magnanimous to such a degree that Cervantes has been suspected of drawing a sublime caricature of him in Don Quixote. Masters of the new World, whose gold came by galleons to Sevilla, he was always in need of money and dependent upon the favors of usurers. Lover of peace, he was always fighting, now defeating Francis I at Marignano, now performing the prodigies of a paladin in Africa, now warring against traitorous barons in Germany and Austria. Lover of Christ and of the Catholic Faith, he saw through the fallacies of Luther; yet he made fatal compromises (his famous Interim, for example) which permitted Lutheranism to pass from the sectarian to the political plane, and so to destroy the unity of Christian Europe for centuries; and he heard with shame, in 1527, that his armies composed in great measure of German Lutherans and of secret Mohammedans (Moriscoes) from eastern Spain, had sacked Rome, besieged and all but killed the Pope, and filled the capital of Christendom with the horrors of butchery, rape, and desecration even of the Blessed Sacrament. Charles considered himself the great champion of the Church, and was sincerely anxious for the reform of existing abuses against which the Lutherans in the north were clamoring, yet he allowed his aunt, Catherine of Aragon, to be cast aside for a royal concubine by Henry VIII, as a prelude to the crafty destruction of the Catholic Faith in England; and he saw his rivalry with Francis I constantly prevent and finally interrupt, the deliberations of the Council of Trent, which alone could restore health and discipline to the human organization of the Church. A cool and skillful statesman, a keen judge of men and motives, and on the whole, a better man than either Francis or Henry, he was in the main outwitted from first to last by more subtle and unscrupulous individuals. At a time when Europe needed a man of single purpose, a Saint Fernando, a Saint Louis, a Catholic Moses, to insist always that the soul of western civilization was the Christian Faith, on which, in the nature of things no compromise was possible, there were two conflicting men in this Habsburg potentate: an ascetic and a sensualist. During the lifetime of his wife, to whom he was faithful apparently until her death, he promised her that when their son Philip was old enough to rule, they would retire from the world, to a monastery, she to a convent, to meditate and pray. After the death of the Empress Isabel, however, circumstances seemed to demand that he retain his power; and the animal in him, which had always manifested itself in his huge feeding and drinking, gained the ascendance for a time. By one of his mistresses, the blond termagant singer Barbara Blomberg, he begot Don Juan of Austria, about the time when he was advising his legitimate son and heir, Philip, to live chastely, and to beware of politicians who would seek to gain influence over him through the wiles of women. The contrast was characteristic, and it continued to the end. An old man at forty-nine, he handed over the government of Spain to Philip, and retired to the monastery at Yuste to prepare for death, to flagellate himself for his sins, to curse at choristers who sang off key, to gorge himself with meat and wine and then to pay with spasms of the gout, as the dregs of his earthly life seeped miserably away.

Charles seemed unaware, most of his life, that he was surrounded by the agents of an international conspiracy to destroy everything that his heart loved and revered. Most of his councillors were Catholics in name only, or very lax Catholics; many of them, in key positions, were of Jewish descent. Charles saw no danger in this. His favorite chaplain was doctor Constantino Ponce de la Fuente, an eloquent preacher whose voice is said to have had something like the effect of music on his congregations, and whose book on Christian doctrine (dedicated to the Emperor, who read it faithfully) gained him a great reputation as a theologian – though at the very time her was in secret communication with Lutherans in Germany, and had two wives living. The chief minister of Charles, the wily Gattinara, had adopted principles of Erasmian heretics then industriously undermining Catholicism in Spain, while Erasmus himself, alarmed at the turn events were taking, was denouncing Luther. Even Alonso Marique, the Inquisitor General, was said to have Erasmian tendencies. The Emperor intervened to save Juan Gil, who was secretly propagating anti-Catholic doctrines at Alcala, from the Inquisition; and he wanted to make him bishop of Tortosa. Another court preacher in high favor was the secret Protestant, Father Augustin Cazalla. Michael Servetus was secretary to the Emperor's confessor, Juan de Quintana. Propagandists were at work to draw the whole Imperial family away from the Church Catholic. Charles's brother Fernando remained faithful in his rather stupid way; but their sister Mary of Hungary was a Lutheran for a time; and Fernando's son Maximillian (who later became Emperor) was notoriously Protestant in his views and in his friends. Even the children of Charles were in grave danger of perversion. Some one skilfully suggested that young Philip II take as his confessor the great Doctor Constantino; but Philip, warned against the man, chose some one else. Philip's sister Maria (later Empress) was not so wary. Her confessor was Fray Vincente de Rocamoro, who later threw off the mask of Catholicism and joined the Hebrew community at Amsterdam as Isaac of Rocamoro.

The Expulsion of the Jews from Spain had been only a temporary misfortune for that energetic and resourceful race. Already, in various parts of the world, they had built up new political and commercial empires. Even before the Spanish calamity, their control of international trade, and of almost the entire economic life of Europe, had been broken by the organization of the medieval Catholic workmen's guilds: but they had gone a long way toward repairing the misfortune, and scattered from Spain and Portugal, were soon controlling the overland trade between the West and Indies, at Ferrrar, Venice, Ancona, Salonika, Constaninople, Cairo and Suez. A Portuguese Jewish family names Mendes, with relatives in Spain, the Netherlands and England, formed a powerful syndicate which became known as the Spice Trust, whose owners collected toll on goods consumed in every country in Europe, maintained an elaborate intelligence or spy system, indulged in usury on a vast scale, gradually pushed into the background such Catholic bankers as the Fuggers, and threw the huge weight of their wealth and influence on the side of any movement aimed against the Church of ChristJoseph Mendes, one of the spice magnates, went to Constantinople and there became virtually master of the policy of the Sultan; it was he, for example, who instigated the great threat to Christendom which was stopped by the fleet of Don Juan of Austria at LepantoAll the powers of international Jewry were allied with, if not actually the motive power of, the vast conspiracy which produced the Protestant revolt. In fact, it was the famous Battle of the Books, a dispute over the Jewish Talmud and Kabbala, which set the stage for Luther. Erasmus's friend Reuchlin, the defender of the Jewish books, assembled around his a party of revolutionaries without whose instant support the Augustinian monk’s voice might have had no more effect than Huss's or Segarelli'sOnce the landslide began, the wide-spread wealth and power of Talmudic Jewry was organized behind the new movements in England, Germany, and France, and probably gave them their permanence. International finance gave the Protestant Revolt a world capital at London. Many good things came to an end: medieval hospitals and charities; the unity of Europe; the Catholic guilds of workmen, from which the modern labor movement still has much to learn.

Charles apparently had no insight into the real significance of all this revolution that was going on around him and in his very household. For many years he retained a pathetic belief in the efficacy of physical force and, even more, of political intrigue. As he had compromised with the Lutheran movement in Germany, so he attempted to outflank the Anglican position by compromise and finesse. He arranged for Philip (whose Portuguese wife had died) to marry Mary Tudor, with the hope that they would have a son who would inherit both England and Spain, and thus bring England back into the Catholic fold. This in part was to be Philip's recompense for having lost the Empire. The whole international anti-catholic ring had seen to it that the Imperial succession would pass not to the Spanish prince, whose unyielding devotions to the Catholic Church was well know, but to his cousin Maximillian, whose lukewarm Catholicism was believed to mask a Protestant heart. Philip, however, would still be the most powerful ruler in Christendom: he would have, besides England and Spain, the control of Italy through Milan and Naples; Burgundy, the Low Countries, and the New World. The recovery of England would make the victory over Protestantism decisive.

This beautiful dream dissolved in the light of actuality. Charles and his obedient son made the fatal mistake of not following the advice of the Pope and Cardinal Pole on the restoration of the immense properties of the English Church, stolen by Henry VIII and passed on by him to crafty upstarts who supplanted the ancient nobility. These men, under the skillful and unscrupulous leadership of William Cecil, were resolved at all costs to suppress the Catholic worship in England, for the sake of the loot they held. They were so cowed at the accession of Mary that a bold stoke then might have forced them to restore the monastery lands and other properties to the rightful owners. But Charles and Philip advised Mary not to insist too much on the point; counting, of course, on the birth of a Catholic heir, and the healing effects of time. The heir was not born, however, and time proved unfaithful. When Mary died without issue, Philip felt sure that her bastard sister Elizabeth would keep her oath to be a good Catholic if crowned. It had been within his power to exclude her; he even toyed with the idea, doubtless with encouragement by Elizabeth, that he could marry her if he chose, and thus keep England within his hand. Philip  did not know that William Cecil had secretly arranged matters with Ann Boleyn's daughter, and would control her by his powerful will, and the weapon of fear, for nearly all her life. She had hardly been crowned when she broke her oath, revealed herself a Protestant, and made Cecil her chief minister. Thus Philip, with the best of intentions, and it must be admitted, as victim of his father's opportunist policies, had set up a power which would become the rallying point of the new Protestant world, shield the ancient hatred of the Catholic Church, and plague him to the day of his death. Thanks to his father's political advisers, too, he had been drawn into a costly and foolish war with Pope Paul IV, who on his side was deceived by a scoundrelly nephew; and it was a sorry satisfaction when the Spanish troops under the Duke of Alba, took Rome.

Charles, meanwhile, on returning to Spain to prepare his soul for death, had had more than one rude awakening. With no Ximenes beside him to give wise and disinterested advice, the prematurely old Emperor was shocked especially to learn that while he had been neglecting the Inquisition founded by his ancestors, and making clever compromises with the heretics of Germany and England, Lutheranism had not only appeared, but had made considerable headway, in Spain.

Even after the reforms of Ximenes, there was some danger that an anti-Catholic movement might take hold in Spain. The reforms of the great Cardinal had not yet permeated the secular clergy. Also, among the large population of Catholic Jews there were still some who were waiting for any opportunity to embrace a cause which called itself Christian (without demand the Christian test of sincerity in the confessional) and yet was a solvent of true Christianity. Finally Erasmus had sown the seeds of dissidence. This Voltairian individual, this versatile mediocre man with far more knowledge than wisdom, this sickly misbegotten dispeptic who had an almost irrational hatred of monks because his uncle had forced him to enter an Augustinian monastery, and jeered at Crusaders among whom his puny limbs could never have taken a place, became immensely popular in Spain at the beginning of the siglo de oro. He had done some good works on pagan and Christian antiquities, and in patrology; he was ski;lful in polemics; above all, he attacked clerical abuses at a time when it was fashionable all over Europe to do so. He went even further: he ridiculed rites and ceremonies of the Church, and scoffed at some of her sacred dogmas. He despised such warrior Popes as Julius II (whom Moses would have understood better) and could not find words enough to flatter the Medici Popes, Leo X and Clement VII, under whose pontificates occurred two of the greatest calamities that had befallen the Church: the loss of Germany and the loss of England. His Praise of Folly contained in embryo all of Luther's subsequent attack, and even ridiculed texts of Holy Scripture. Good men were taken in by him, believing him to be a sincere Catholic seeking needed reforms. Saint Ignatius began reading his works on the advice of his confessor: but on noticing his fervor and devotion began to ebb away in proportion, he cast away the book he was reading, and thereafter held all the writings of Erasmus in abhorrence. Juan de Vergaro, thought he had been a secretary to Cardinal Ximenes, was less sensitive to spiritual odors; he obtained a Spanish pension for Erasmus. Neither wholly Catholic or wholly Protestant, this mean-spirited scholar withdrew from the abyss in which Luther had walked, while his disciples became pioneers of the New Religion in England, and even in Spain.

To understand the shock of horror with which the Emperor Charles discovered all this in 1558, just before his death, one must consider circumstances often omitted or overlooked in the modern conspiracy (When I use “conspiracy” in this sense, I do not mean necessarily a plot controlled by one man, or a small group: it suffices to notice that men of the same spiritual affinity tend toward a common end) against truth which has poisoned the records of the English-speaking world, but painfully real to men of the time. England, more than ninety per cent Catholic, was quietly taken in hand by a small rich minority of enemies of the Catholic church, many of them, like Cecil, of very obscure origin. In France, leagued with the English Protestants, another small but rich minority of Calvinists, chiefly nobles and usurers, were beginning the formidable plots which were to lead to the eight bloody Huguenot Wars. These two groups had very intimate connections with the Lutheran princes of Germany, and with William of Orange, who was already laying the groundwork for the Protestant revolt in the Low Countries, and urging the Turks, through Jewish bankers friends who were his heavy creditors, to attack Catholic Spain from the Mediterranean. Not all of this was evident in 1558, but enough of it had come to light to make the last nights of the Emperor very restless indeed. And then to find out that a Lutheran plot was well advanced in Spain – !

Perhaps the Spanish, having fought the battles of Christendom against unbelief so many centuries, had a keener awareness that some of their northern neighbors of the significance of such movements. They had learned that in this world appearances are often deceptive. A Dominican theologian, familiar with the recent activities of the Alumbrados, discovered by the agents of [Cardinal] Ximenes [de Cisernos], and aware of the ideas of the medieval Manichee heretics from which they derived, would not be long in stripping the gospel of Luther of its accidents, which gave it the superficial appearance of something new, and fining in its essentials the same old enemy that the Catholic Church had been fighting so many centuries. Luther professed to be appealing from the Middle Ages to the virgin purity of the first Christian centuriesIn reality he was leading the minds of his victims even further back in time, back, in the labyrinth of ideas, to the gospel of despair so elaborately disguised by the bhikkus of India, and so craftily revived by the Beghards, Beguins and other secret societies of the thirteenth century.

“Escape from the evils of life (Karma), from desire and action, into nothingness,” said the Buddhists in effect. “Join us, look within, and sink into pure contemplation. Once desire is dead, you shall be free from sin, rebirth and misery.”

“Life is evil, the work of the devil,” said the medieval Manichees. “Do not listen to Pope or priest, but join our sect of the Pure and the Perfect: then, no matter what you do, you are free from sin, from the torment of conscience, from the evil of living.”

“Be illuminated by a divine feeling from within,” said the Alumbrados. “Obey no one but God, Once you have become perfect and left desire behind, no carnal act you happen to perform can be sinful.”

No human works are of any avail,” said Luther. “Only faith can save you. If you have faith, it does not matter how much you sin; in fact, the more you sin the more you prove your faith. Therefor be a sinner, sin strongly, sin a thousand times a day.”

Was not Luther's doctrine of salvation by grace alone a restatement, with a somewhat different emphasis, of the old despairing dogma of the Alumbrados, the Manichees, the Gnostics, the Buddhists? Did not he and Melancthon, in the name of reform revive that other heresy of Fraticelli: the detestable error that the state had absolute power over the individual and the Church that the State was the supreme judge and master of human affairs: there was a familiar Manichean smell about all this Lutheran business, and in the nostrils of the Dominicans it was not good.

Spain had a reminder of the implications of Illuminism in 1544, when the Inquisition, in one of its few moments of activity under Charles V, astonished the country by arresting the famous beata, Sister Magdalena de la Cruz, who had been a nun for forty years at the convent of Saint Isabel of the Angels in Cordoba, and had had such a reputation for holiness that even members of the royal family went to solicit her prayers, while the Empress Isabel, wife of Charles V, gave her in gratitude the robe in which her son, Philip II, had been baptized. It was said that the saintly woman performed dreadful penances and vigils, that she lived only on the Host received in Holy Communion, and that she had received the stigmata of Our Lord on hands, feet and side.

Under examination by the Dominican inquisitors, however, Sister Magdalena made some very different revelations. She admitted that she was not a Catholic at all, but one of the sect of the Alumbrados; that when seven years old, she had been persuaded by the devil to pretend sanctity; that at eleven she had made a pact with two demonios incubos, named Balban and Pitonio, who used to have intercourse with her by night, disguised in various ways – now as a Jeronymite friar, now as a Franciscan, now as a black bull, now as a camel. In obedience to them she made wounds on her hands, feet and side so cleverly that even holy persons were deceived; she went into “trances” in which she seemed insensible even to the prick of needles, she imposed even upon princesses and the Empress.

The Inquisition imprisoned this foul impostor for life. Yet her evil mission had a certain measure of success even after her death. Her example made good people afraid of all who manifested any of the phenomenon to which she laid claim; so that when Saint Teresa of Avila experienced real raptures and visions, she was suspected by pious persons of being just one more Magdalena of the Cross, and endured unspeakable persecutions in consequence, even after the Inquisitors declared her free from heresy and deception, and a true mystic.

Whether Magdalena was an impostor, a paranoiac, a lunatic, or one possessed, is beside the point here. It was intolerable that such a person should be allowed to represent the Catholic religion and impose upon the Catholic people. It was one of the functions of the Holy Office to protect the faithful from such deceptions; and although Luther was a very different sort of person from the nun of Cordoba, there was a certain similarity between his doctrine and that of the secret society to which she belonged. They too, used Christian terminology, though with esoteric meanings; they spoke of “contrition for sin,” “the cross of the Christian,” “the warmth of the Holy Ghost” and so on; and all their emphasis was on feeling as opposed to reason, and on private judgment as opposed to the authority of an ordered Church. (William Thomas Walsh, Characters of the Inquisition, New York, P.J. Kenedy & Sons, 1940 pp. 214-223.)

This describes Jorge Mario Bergoglio just as much as the “Christian Zionists” who are such enthusiastic supporters of President Donald John Trump, especially after his decision to relocate the American embassy in the Zionist State of Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem over the course of the next several years.

William Thomas Walsh’s commentary about the work courageous work of Francisco Cardinal Jiménez de Cisneros, known by contemporaries as Ximens de Cisernos, to root out Jewish infiltration of the Church in Spain to spread the errors of Luther makes it very clear how Jewish saboteurs have long sough to take down Holy Mother Church and thus to discredit and supplant her role in civil society:

The Dominicans, Augustinians and Carmelites did not resist. It was his own community that gave him one of the great battles of his life. After the death of Saint Francis, as we have seen, that order passed through a hectic period, at the end of which when peace had been restored through the efforts of Saint John Capistrano, there still remained two divisions, the Conventuals, who took the easier road for human nature to follow as regarded property and other matters, and the Observatines, who sought to follow the ideal of Saint Francis in all its rigor. Ximenes himself a member by choice of the latter group, put all Franciscans in Spain under the direction of the Commissary General, and then proceeded to reform them. The Conventuals were furious; many of them, in fact, were good men sincerely convinced that their modified rule was better than the original one. The dispute reached such a stage of acrimony that an Italian Franciscan General went to Spain purposely to put an end to the reform, spoke insultingly to Queen Isabel in his anger, and evoked from her a memorable rebuke, while Gonzalo de Cetina, secretary for Aragon, threatened to hang the distinguished visitor with the cord of his habit. Such strong representations were made at the Vatican that Alexander VI, in 1496, ordered the housecleaning suspended, but the following year, being better informed, he allowed it to go on. Ximenes carried on the war to victory. He had the satisfaction of learning that a thousand bad monks had given up the struggle in Castile, and had migrated to Morocco, where they might live as they pleased – some of them taking along women with whom they had given scandal. The Church and Spain were much better, of course, for their departure; and although Ximenes never completed his task with the secular clergy, he had carried the movement so far that when he died the boast was made, with justice, that the Spanish monks were noted beyond all those of Christendom for temperance, chastity, and virtuous living in general. In the course of time, the improved state of the monasteries had its effect upon the secular priesthood. It was probable the reform of Ximenes, therefore that saved Spain from succumbing, after his death, to Protestantism. Unlike his English contemporaries, he proved that monks could be brought back to discipline without cutting off their heard, destroying their works of mercy and handing over their lands to usurers.

Every heretical movement had two important elements: (1) a protest, usually exaggerated but with more or less foundation in fact, against abuses arising from the weaknesses of human nature in the Church; and (2) a conspiracy, often cloaked by some sort of secret society, to pervert the teachings of Christ and the Church, under pretext of reform. Ximenes had forestalled the first of these conditions in Spain. He also did a great deal to expose and prevent the second. It was while he was Inquisitor General, for example, that the sect known as the Alumbrados or Illuminates was first discovered in the Peninsula.

Nothing in history is without cause and without effect. The Alumbrados were a link in the chain of causality connecting the Manichees of the Middle Ages with modern anti-Christian movements; the Inquisition of Toulouse with the French Revolution and the Bolshevik Revolution.

The name Iluminado first appeared in Spain when a report sent to Cardinal Ximenes concerning the activities of one Fray Antonio de Patrana, who had begun to preach a revelation which he said came to him directly from God, called himself Illuminatus, and went about the countryside with certain holy women, on whom he had been instructed, by the inner voice he followed, to beget prophets. The Inquisition clapped him into prison, and scattered his sect.

Obviously, he was a spiritual descendent of those Fourteenth Century imposters Segarelli and Dulcinus. It was no new cure that he dispensed. Nor was Illuminism but a distortion of Christian mysticism, any more than it was a perversion of Judaism. True it made its way into the Christian Church under the guise of various heresies, as it deceived many of the scattered children of Moses under the covers of the Talmud; but in reality it was quite different in origin. The Law of Moses and the Law of Christ came from God, from the source of being, of good, of light, of growth; when free to do so they always produced orderly and beautiful living. And both of them were opposed, from very early times, by a totally different spirit, the spirit than denies, that hates life, that causes confusion and chaos. This dark spirit enthroned itself in the East, even before the Incarnation; and there shielded by a singularly pure and austere code of morality, it evolved systems of thought which took on the appearances of religions, but were in reality elaborate form of atheism. Is not the Nirvana of the Buddhists, the goal of all their strivings thought countless reincarnations, nothing but the death and annihilation of the individual conscience, the extinction of human personality in an All which is but a step from Nothing? Buddhism, the child of pantheistic Brahminism, is atheism in disguise; and granting all that may be said for Buddha's good intentions, the sincere and self-sacrificing lives of many of his followers, and the truth of many of their teachings, the system itself contained the seeds of intellectual and spiritual degeneration. Out of it came a pseudo-mysticism based upon such conceptions as these: life is not worth living, personality is a burden and a curse, marriage is a bed of hot coals leading to the propagation of an evil, all labor and effort are useless, the family and other forms of society therefore become pointless, anarchy thus follows logically, and man can do no better than escape from the penalties of Karma and the chains of human desire into a cold and selfless (but actually selfish) absorption into Nirvana. Pure contemplation, to these mystics, meant that the soul lost its individuality and annihilated itself as it sank into the infinite essence, until at last it arrived at a state of perfection which was soul, there could be no sin.

These ideas underwent many fantastic transmutations as they traveled from the dying East to invade the living West. But the dangerous corollary that to the pure all things are pure, that nothing a perfect soul may do in the ectasy of contemplation can be sinful, persisted in the teachings of several heresies. It was taught by the early Gnostics, by Plotinus, by the Priscillians in Galicia, by the thirteenth century Albigenses of Southern France, by thefourteenth century Beghards of Beguins in Catalonia and Leon. And now the hoary superstition of the Buddhist bkikkus (beggars) which isolated the human soul from human society, from moral good (through braking down the distinction between good and evil) and from God Himself, was reappearing under the mask of “Illuminism.” In exposing and punishing the Alhumbrados, then, Ximenes was merely resuming in Castile the battle that Eymeric had waged, more than a century before, in Aragon and Catalonia.

He was eighty years old when King Fernando died in 1516. Queen Juana was less fit than ever to reign. Her son Charles was in Flanders, where he had been brought up, and was not yet seventeen. All the old intrigues which had divided and weakened Spain in the past began to stir behind the scenes. Nobles were reaching again for power. Catholic Jews of slight orthodoxy saw a fresh opportunity to deal a blow at the Inquisition, which had fallen so heavily upon them or upon their ancestors. They offered Charles V 800,000 ducats if he would make certain “reforms” in the procedure of the Holy Office.

The young king was tempted to accept. What did the Inquisition mean to him? He had been in Spain very little, and was more of a Fleming than a Spaniard, both in looks and in training. Why not do as the Conversos suggested, and allow, among other things publication of the names of witnesses and delators?

Ximenes, who knew that the Holy Office had been the cornerstone of the resurrected Spain, the fulcrum not only of political unity and power, but of spiritual reform, wrote a memorable letter to Charles.

“Most high and mighty Catholic King, most gracious lord: The Catholic sovereigns, as your Majesty is aware, have bestowed so much care upon the Holy Tribunal of the Inquisition, and examined its laws and institutions with so much prudence, wisdom and consciousness, that modifications of it are not needed, but would rather be harmful than otherwise. At the present moment such changes would fill me the more with sorrow, as they would assuredly tend to increase the defiance shown to the Inquisition by the Catalonians and the Pope. The pecuniary embarrassment of your Majesty is, I confess, very great, but certainly that of Fernando the Catholic, the grandfather of your Majesty, was greater, when the newly converted Christians offered him 600,000 gold ducats to carry on the Navarrese war. He did not accept their proposals, because he preferred the purity of the Christian religion to all the gold in the world. With all the true devotion of a loyal subject, with the zeal which I must have for the office to which your Majesty has raised me, I beseech you to open your eyes and follow the example of your Majesty's grandfather, and consent to no changes in the proceedings of the Inquisition. All the objections raised by its adversaries have before been refuted, under the Catholic kings of glorious memory. The modifications of even the most unimportant law of the Inquisition could not be made without betraying the honor of God and insulting that of your most illustrious ancestors. If this consideration has not sufficient weight with your Majesty, may it please you to recall the deplorable occurrence which has lately taken place at Talavera de la Reina, when a newly-converted Jew, who had learned the name of his accuser, searched for him and stabbed him. The hatred against these informers is indeed so great that, if the publication of their names is not prevented, they will not only be assassinated in private and public, but even at the foot of the altar. No one will be found in future willing to risk his life by similar denunciations; this would be the ruin of the Holy Tribunal, and the cause of God would be left without a defender. I live in confidence that your Majesty, my King, and Lord, will not become unfaithful to the Catholic blood which runs in your veins, but be convinced that the Inquisition is a tribunal of God, and an excellent institution of your Majesty's ancestors.” (William Thomas Walsh, Characters of the Inquisition, New York, P.J. Kenedy & Sons, 1940 pp. 204-207.)