Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
November 14, 2012


Anti-Catholicism Brought to You In Scarlet

by Thomas A. Droleskey

As those broken ribs I sustained yesterday afternoon have put a real crimp in my ability to type anything other than reasonably short articles, I promise you this article will be as brief as possible.

One of the principal purposes that the conciliar revolutionaries have "updated" and "repackaged" the condemned Modernist concept of "evolution of dogma," which has been "sold" for the past seven years as the "hermeneutic of continuity," is to justify a complete break from Catholic teaching in a number of areas (the Divine Constitution of the Church was eviscerated by the so-called "new ecclesiology," the Church's Divinely-given mission to seek with urgency the unconditional conversion of all non-Catholics to the true Faith was replaced by false ecumenism, the Church's condemnations of religious liberty and separation of Church and State were reject with these falsehoods proclaimed as a matter of fundamental "human rights," rationalist interpretations of Sacred Scripture denounced by the Syllabus of Errors and Lamentabili Sane became commonplace, Scholasticism was overthrown in favor of the Hegelianism of the "new theology"). Even though the conciliarists are committed to each of the condemned propositions that they have promoted with such great zeal and that they intend to promote far into the future, there is one particular matter that they keep insisting is non-negotiable: absolute, unconditional acceptance of what Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI calls his false church's "new relationship" with the "faith of Israel."

Ratzinger/Benedict specifically listed this "new way of thinking about" his false church's relationship with what he called "the faith of Israel" in his infamous Christmas address to the members of his curia on December 22, 2005:

Secondly, it was necessary to give a new definition to the relationship between the Church and the modern State that would make room impartially for citizens of various religions and ideologies, merely assuming responsibility for an orderly and tolerant coexistence among them and for the freedom to practise their own religion.

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.

These are all subjects of great importance - they were the great themes of the second part of the Council - on which it is impossible to reflect more broadly in this context. It is clear that in all these sectors, which all together form a single problem, some kind of discontinuity might emerge. Indeed, a discontinuity had been revealed but in which, after the various distinctions between concrete historical situations and their requirements had been made, the continuity of principles proved not to have been abandoned. It is easy to miss this fact at a first glance.

It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically than before that the Church's decisions on contingent matters - for example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation of the Bible - should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself. It was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within. On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change.

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.. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005)

For Ratzinger/Benedict to be correct, of course, God the Holy Ghost not only hid this "knowledge" that had to be "learned," but He permitted a solemn dogmatic council, the [First] Vatican Council, to falsely condemn the whole concept of viewing dogmatic statements in light of the historical circumstances in which they written. This means that, ipso facto, the Catholic Church has no infallibility whatsoever and that God the Holy Ghost misdirected the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council and that the true popes who reiterated the condemnation were themselves mistaken.

Why this blasphemy against God the Holy Ghost?

To please the Talmudists. That is why.

The latest to kowtow to the ancient enemies of the Catholic Faith, for whose conversion we must pray every day, is the counterfeit church of conciliarism's Kurt "Cardinal" Koch, who heads the "Pontifical" Council on Promoting the Unity of Christians and is also the head of the "Pontifical" Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews. Koch, who succeeded the notorious Walter "Cardinal" Kasper in 2010, is the latest in a succession of conciliar officials this year to warn the Society of Saint Pius X to renounce all "anti-Judaism" in order to accept the "teaching" of the "Second" Vatican Council proclaimed in Nostra Aetate, October 28, 1965, and that has been "refined" by the conciliar "popes," especially by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI:

The effort to reintegrate the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X into the Catholic church "absolutely does not mean" that the Catholic church will accept or support the anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic positions espoused by some members of the society, said Cardinal Kurt Koch.

The cardinal, president of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, said many Jews "fear that through the eventual reintegration of a series of priests and faithful with anti-Jewish tendencies and who fundamentally reject 'Nostra Aetate,'" the Second Vatican Council document on relations with Jews and with other religions, "the Catholic church could give a new direction to its dialogue with Judaism."

Addressing members of the commission, which oversees and promotes a variety of Vatican dialogues with Jews, Koch said, "The Holy Father has charged me with presenting the question in the correct way: 'Nostra Aetate' is not being questioned in any way by the magisterium of the church as the pope himself has demonstrated repeatedly in his speeches, his writings and his personal gestures regarding Judaism."

"The Catholic church is moving firmly on the basis of the principles affirmed in 'Nostra Aetate,'" and Pope Benedict XVI intends to continue the church's dialogue with the Jewish people, the cardinal said in his speech, which was published Wednesday in L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper.

"Nostra Aetate" described Christians and Jews as having a common heritage and a profound spiritual bond; it denounced any form of contempt of the Jews; it said the Jews could not be held responsible for the death of Jesus; and "it explicitly highlighted the Jewish roots of Christianity," Koch said.

In discussions about the SSPX and the Second Vatican Council, the cardinal said, questions also have been raised about the level of teaching authority in various council documents; the idea has been raised that because "Nostra Aetate" was a declaration and not a constitution, its content has less weight.

"On a formal level, a distinction certainly can be made" between the council's declarations and constitutions, he said. "Nevertheless, from the point of view of their content, they cannot be separated from each other or placed in opposition to each other."

"Nostra Aetate," he said, was not "an isolated meteorite that fell from heaven," but it flowed from the other teachings of the council, particularly the council's reflections on the mystery of the church.

Koch said Pope Benedict's full support of the teaching on Judaism adopted by the council was evident even before the council began meeting in 1962. As a student of the scriptures, the then-Joseph Ratzinger had "a considerable familiarity with Judaism," he said.

"The foundation of the vision of Ratzinger the theologian is that holy scripture can be understood only as one book," in which the history of salvation begins with God's covenant with the Jewish people, he said. "In the light of these theological convictions, one cannot be surprised that Pope Benedict is continuing the work of reconciliation begun by his predecessors in Jewish-Catholic dialogue." (Fake, Phony, Fraud Cardinal: Vatican-SSPX talks do not signal toleration of anti-Judaism.)


What this poor, unfortunate lord of conciliarism does not understand is that the Catholic Church is "anti" every false religion, including Talmudism.

Yes, the Catholic Church is anti-Jewish.

Yes, the Catholic Church is anti-Mohammedan.

Yes, the Catholic Church is anti-Protestant.

Yes, the Catholic Church is anti-Hindu.

Yes, the Catholic Church is anti-Buddhist.

Yes, the Catholic Church is "anti" every false religion as the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity, hates, indeed loathes, every false religion, which why Saint Benedict of Nursia toppled idols and destroyed temples of false worship and why Saint Boniface, the Apostle of Germany, took an axe to a tree that was "worshiped" by German pagans.

As has been noted in numerous commentaries on this site, the goal of Talmudism, which has been detailed so well by Mr. Hugh Akins in his massive study, Synagogue Rising, is to make it appear that anyone who promotes the Sacred Rights of Christ the King is an anti-Semite and thus bears "personal responsibility" for the crimes of the Adolf Hitler's Third Reich and is an actual "hater" of Jews. Father Fahey put the lie to this sixty years ago now:

On the one hand, the Church condemns race hatred in general and hatred of the Redeemer’s race in particular. On the other hand, the Church insists, as we have seen, on the duty of combating naturalism in public and private life and approves of love of native land and extols true supernatural patriotism. We have the right and the duty to defend our country and our nation against the unjust aggression of another nation. This duty is still more strongly urged upon us when it is a question of our country’s fidelity to Christ the King. We must, therefore, combat naturalism in general always and everywhere, and we must be vigilant in regard to the naturalism of the Jewish nation in particular. The tireless energy with which His own nation pursues the elimination of the influence of the supernatural life is doubly painful to our Lord’s Sacred Heart. The combat against naturalism in general and, therefore, against the organised naturalism of the Jewish nation, is urged upon us, for example, by Pope Leo XIII (Tametsi, 1900) and Pope Pius XI (Quas Primas, 1925, and Quadragesimo Anno, 1931). . . .

Given the naturalistic messianic ambition of the Jewish nation to impose its rule on the other nations, anti-semitism for the Jews logically means whatever is in opposition to that ambition. The situation since the Second World War is being cleverly exploited to prevent anyone from opposing Jewish aims, through fear of being dubbed an “anti-Semite.” I n my book, The Mystical Body of Christ and the Reorganisation of Society, I pointed out that the disordered National Socialist action against the corroding influence of Jewish naturalism on German national life led not only to measures of repression against the Jews, with regrettable violations of their personal rights, but also to persecution of the Catholic Church. Comparatively little information concerning the anti-Catholic measures ever reached the great newspaper-reading, cinema-going public, while hardly anyone could fail to be aware of what was done to the Jews. The term “anti-semitism,” with all its war connotation of Nazi cruelty, is now having its comprehension widened to include every form of opposition to the Jewish nation’s naturalistic programme. Forgetfulness of the disorder of Jewish naturalism is keeping Catholics blind to the consequences of accepting the term with its Jewish comprehension. According to the leaders of the Jewish nation, to stand for the rights of Christ the King is to be an anti-Semite. (Father Denis Fahey, The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation.)


Conciliarism is a Talmudic enterprise from beginning to end. The conciliar revolutionaries think nothing of blaspheming the Most Blessed Trinity as its "popes" and 'bishops" have treated a dead religion as something pleasing to God and that has the means to "sanctify" its adherents. They twist themselves into all manner of pretzel shapes, however, to "prove" to the Talmudists that there is no "going back" to the "way things were," which means, of course, no return to the teaching enunciated so clearly over the centuries by the Catholic Church:


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; [31] but 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.)

Pope Saint Pius X: 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.

Theodore 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. (Marvin Lowenthal, Diaries of Theodore Herzl, pp. 427- 430.)


It [the Holy Roman Catholic Church] 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. (Cantate Domino, February 4, 1442.)

Does all of this just kind of "go away" a wink and a nod by the invocation of the dogmatically condemned Modernist notion of the "evolution of dogma" that you boys are selling these days as the "hermeneutic of continuity, "Cardinal" Koch?.

You and your false "pontiff," Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, are the real anti-Semites in the world as you show yourselves to be the enemies of the souls of those steeped in the ways of the blasphemous Talmud by refusing to seek with urgency their conversion to the true Faith, reaffirming them in a dead, superseded religion that has no power to save or to sanctify human souls and is displeasing in the sight of the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity, Who hates, that is correct, loathes, each and every false religion, including Talmudism.

These words of wisdom apply to the cultural and political legal warfare that has been waged in this country by Judeo-Masonry. Indeed, as Father Fahey quotes from Pope Pius XI:

“Comprehending and merciful charity towards the erring,” he writes, “and even towards the contemptuous, does not mean and can not mean that you renounce in any way the proclaiming of, the insisting on, and the courageous defence of the truth and its free and unhindered application to the realities about you. The first and obvious duty the priest owes to the world about him is service to the truth, the whole truth, the unmasking and refutation of error in whatever form or disguise it conceals itself.” (Pope Pius XII, Mit Brennender Sorge, March 14, 1937)

Anti-Semitism--or simple fidelity to this mission that the God-Man, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, gave to the Eleven before He Ascended to the Father's right hand in glory on Ascension Thursday, "Archbishop" Di Noia?

And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And seeing them they adored: but some doubted. And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. (Mt. 28: 16-20)


Was Father Maria-Alphonse Ratisbonne, who was converted to the Faith after Our Lady appeared to him in the Church of San Andrea delle Fratte, in Rome Italy, on January 20, 1842, as she appeared on the Miraculous Medal, and his brother, Father Theodore Ratisbonne, "anti-Semitic" to seek the conversion of their fellow Jews of the Talmud? They "targeted" Jews for conversion, something that Father Raniero Cantalamessa, the "preacher" to the "papal" household of both John Paul II and Benedict XVI said in 2005 must not be done:

If Jews one day come (as Paul hopes) to a more positive judgment of Jesus, this must occur through an inner process, as the end of a search of their own (something that in part is occurring). We Christians cannot be the ones who seek to convert them. We have lost the right to do so by the way in which this was done in the past. First the wounds must be healed through dialogue and reconciliation. (Zenit, September 30, 2005.)

Catholics hate no one. We hate our sins. We hate the promotion of sin in the world and its protection under the cover of the civil law. We hate the devil and his minions who inspire us to the commission of various sins. It is no hatred of anyone to seek their conversion to the true Faith, the Catholic Faith, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order, and to denounce the efforts of those who hate Our Lord and His true Church to promote evil under cover of the civil law. Shame on you "Archbishop" Di Noia, for your shameless use of the phrase "anti-Semitic" to refer to those who simply adhere, despite their own sins and failings, to the immutable teaching that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ from which you and your "pope" and your fellow "bishops" defect so completely and make war against so ceaselessly and relentlessly.

This could go on ad infinitum, ad nauseam. There is no need.

Conciliarism is not Catholicism. They are two opposing religions. This is not a matter of "diabolical disorientation." This is a matter of apostasy, and apostates cannot hold office in the Catholic Church legitimately.

Yes, you see men such as Kurt "Cardinal" Koch and the man he works for, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, are the ultimate "haters" in the wold as they have a visceral hatred for the immutable teaching of the Catholic Church, as they seek to appease rather than to convert those whose singular mission in life is to make the world safe for Antichrist.

The saint whose martyrdom we celebrate today, Wednesday, November 14, 2012, Saint Josaphat Kucenewicz, laid down his very life in defense of the truths of the Holy Faith as he sought to convert the Orthodox back to the true Faith from which their ancestors had separated themselves nearly five hundred seventy years before. He did not care about threats. He was not going to be intimidated. He did not complain about the obstacles. He accepted calumnies with perfect equanimity, seeing in his detractors the loving hand of God to purify him for the sake of His greater honor and glory and the sanctification and salvation of souls. Saint Josaphat's martyrdom, however, came, the conciliarists would have us believe, with an "expiration" date, that of October 28, 1958, which was the dawning of the age of conciliarism, an age wherein purported "popes" have told the world that it is no longer necessary to seek to convert the Orthodox, something that they have formalized in the Balamand Statement that was made leaders of various branches of Orthodoxy:

23. Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other; that is to say, it no longer aims at proselytizing among the Orthodox. It aims at answering the spiritual needs of its own faithful and it has no desire for expansion at the expense of the Orthodox Church. Within these perspectives, so that there will no longer be room for mistrust and suspicion, it is necessary that there be reciprocal exchanges of information about various pastoral projects and that thus cooperation between bishops and all those with responsibilities in our Churches can be set in motion and develop.

23. The history of the relations between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Catholic Churches has been marked by persecutions and sufferings. Whatever may have been these sufferings and their causes, they do not justify any triumphalism; no one can glorify in them or draw an argument from them to accuse or disparage the other Church, God alone knows his own witnesses. Whatever may have been the past, it must be left to the mercy of God, and all the energies of the Churches should be directed towards obtaining that the present and the future conform better to the will of Christ for his own.

24. It will also be necessary--and this on the part of both Churches--that the bishops and all those with pastoral responsibilities in them scrupulously respect the religious liberty of the faithful. These, in turn, must be able to express freely their opinion by being consulted and by organizing themselves to this end.

In fact, religious liberty requires that, particularly in situations of conflict, the faithful are able to express their opinion and to decide without pressure from outside if they wish to be in communion either with the Orthodox Church or with the Catholic Church. Religious freedom would be violated when, under the cover of financial assistance, the faithful of one Church would be attracted to the other, by promises, for example, of education and material benefits that may be lacking in their own Church. In this context, it will be necessary that social assistance, as well as every form of philanthropic activity, be organized with common agreement so as to avoid creating new suspicions. (The Balamand Statement.)


Yes, the martyrdom of Saint Josaphat is considered to be "out-of-date" for the conciliarists, part of the "past" about which there needs to be a "purification of memory." Those in the Orthodox churches have no need to fear of their eternal salvation. Indeed, a way must be exercise the "Petrine Ministry" in a manner that recalls Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's mythical beliefs about the papacy in the First Millennium.

Saint Josaphat's life stands in stark contrast to the heresies of conciliarism that leave so many souls into error and others in peril of losing their souls. Dom Prosper Gueranger explained the courage and zeal of this great martyr's life and his heroic death:

Josaphat Kuncewicz, contemporary with St. Francis de Sales and St. Vincent de Paul, might have been taken for a Greek monk of the eleventh century or an ascetic of the Thebaid. A stranger to the intellectual culture of the West, he knew only the liturgical books and sacred texts use din his own church; as a priest, an archimandrite, a reformer of his own Order of St. Basil, and lastly as archbishop, he combated his life the consequences of the schism of Photius, and closed the struggle by culling the palm of martyrdom. Yet all this took place in the heart of Europe, in the countries then subject to Catholic Poland, during the reign of most of its kings. How is this mystery to be explained?

Immediately after the Mongolian invasions Poland received into her arms, rather than conquered, the Ruthenian nation--that is to say, the Slavs of the Greek rite from the Dnieper and the Dwina, who had formed around their capital and religious metropolis, Kiev, the nucleus of the power now known as Russia. Had she granted a participation in her own national life to these brethren separated from, but not enemies to, the Roman unity, who came to her full confidence in her strength and her justice, Poland would have secured the triumph of the Catholic cause, and her own dominion throughout Slavonia. The union of the newcomers with the Roman pontiff, which a little more political insight and religious zeal might have brought about in the fourteenth century, was not concluded until 1595.

This was the union of Brzsec. By the compact signed in this little town of Lithuania, the metropolitan of Kiev and the other Greek bishops declared that they returned to the communion of the holy Apostolic See. Being the spiritual superiors of the half the nation, they thus completed the union of the three peoples, Ruthenian, Lithuanian, and Polish, then subject to Sigismund III. Now, a religious reform, even if decreed by a council, does not become a reality until men of God, true apostles and if need be martyrs, came forward to consummate it. This was the vocation of St. Josaphat, the apostle and martyr of the Union of Brzsec. What he did not himself carry out was completed by his disciples. A century of glory was secured to the nation, and its political ruin was delayed for two hundred years.

But Poland left in a state of humiliating inferiority the clergy and people of the Graeco-Slavonic rite, who had taken shelter in her bosom; her politicians never admitted practically that Christians of the Greek rite could be true Catholics on a equality with their Latin brethren. Soon, however, the Latin Poles were engaged in deadly combat with the Muscovites, and we know how the former were vanquished. Historians lay down the causes of Poland's defeat:; but they usually forget the principal one, which rendered it irremediable--viz., the forced return to schism of the immense majority of the Ruthenians whom St. Josaphat had brought into the Catholic Church. The consummation of this execrable work contributed, far more than political circumstances or military triumphs, to establish Russia's victory. Poland, reduced to nine or ten million Latins, could no longer struggle against her former rival now become her stern ruler.

The power of the Slavs separated from Catholic unity is on the increase. Young nations, emancipated from the Musselman [Mohammedan] yoke, have formed in the Balkan Peninsula. Fidelity to the Graeco-Slavonian rite, identified in their eyes with their nationality and with Christianity, was alone to save these peoples from being stamped out by the Turkish forces. Victorious over the universal enemy, they cannot forget whence came their safety: the moral and religious direction of these resuscitated nations belongs accordingly to Russia. Profiting by these advantages with consummate skill and energy, she continues to develop her influence in the East. In Asia her progress is still more prodigious. The Tsar, who at the end of the eighteenth century ruled over thirty million men, now governs one hundred and twenty-five millions; and and by the normal increase of an exceptionally prolific population, the empire, within another half-century, will reckon more than hundred millions of subjects.

Unhappily for Russia and for the Church, this power is guided at present by blind prejudice. Not only is Russia separated from Catholic unity, but political interest and the recollection of ancient strifes convince her that her greatness depends upon the triumph of what she calls Orthodoxy, which is simply the Photian schism. yet the Roman Church, ever devoted and generous, opens wide her arms to welcome back her wandering daughter; forgetting the injuries she has received, she asks but to be greeted with the name of mother. Let this word be uttered, and a whole sad past will be effaced.

Russia becoming Catholic would mean an end to Islamism, and the definitive triumph of the Cross upon the Bosphorus, without any danger to Europe, the Christian empire in the East restored with a glory and a power hitherto unknown; Asia evangelized, not by a few poor isolated priests, but with the help of an authority greater than that of Charlemagne; and lastly, the Slavonic race brought into unity of faith and aspirations, for its own greater glory. This transformation will be the greatest event of the century that shall see its accomplishment; it will change the face of the world.

Is there any foundation for such hopes? Come what may, St. Josaphat will always be the patron and model of the future apostles of the Union in Russia and in the whole Graeco-Slavonic world. By his birth, education, and studies, by the bent of his piety and all his habits of life, he resembled far more the Russian monks of the present day than the Latin prelates of his own time. He always desired the ancient liturgy of his Church to be preserved entire; and even to his last breath he carried it out lovingly, without the least alteration or diminution, just as the first apostles of the Christian faith had brought it from Constantinople to Kiev. May prejudices born of ignorance be obliterated; and then, despised though his name now is in Russia, St. Josaphat will no sooner be known than he will be loved and invoked by the Russians themselves.

On Graeco-Slavonian brethren cannot much longer turn a deaf ear to the invitations of the Sovereign Pontiff. Let us hope, then, that the day will come, and that before very long, when the wall of separation will crumble away for ever, and the same hymn of thanksgiving will echo at once under the dome of St. Peter's and the cupolas of Kiev and of St. Petersburg. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, The Liturgical Year: Time After Pentecost: Book VI, pp. 266-269.)


Can you understand now why Our Lady called for the conversion of Russia in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal, in 1917, as the fruit its consecration to her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart? Our Lady was not simply speaking about Communism, which had yet to take over Russia in its entirety, although its spirit was strong following the abdication of Czar Nicholas II and Empress Consort Alexander on March 15, 1917. Our Lady was referring also to the errors of Modernity wrought by Orthodoxy. Saint Josaphat understood the importance of Russia to the entirety of Catholic world order. He laid down his life to convert souls to bring about the conversion of this country that is so near and dear to the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Concerned about ObamaCare? There would be no ObamaCare and there would be no Obama as president of the United States of America if the errors of Russia had not been spreading since 1054 A.D., errors that would influence the mind of Martin Luther and result in his own diabolical revolution against the Divine Plan that God instituted to effect man's return to Him through the Catholic Church.  Russia is critical to the re-establishment of Christendom.

To effect the conversion of Russia, of course, Saint Josaphat laid down his very life in a manner described in the Divine Office yesterday for his feast:

In this dignity he relaxed nothing of his former manner of life; and had nothing so much at heart as the divine service and the salvation of the sheep entrusted to him. He energetically defended Catholic faith and unity, and laboured to the utmost of his power to bring back schismatics and heretics to communion with the See of Peter. The Sovereign Pontiff and the plenitude of his power he never ceased to defend, both by preaching and by writings full of piety and learning, against the most shameless calumnies and errors of the wicked. He vindicated episcopal rights, and restored ecclesiastical possessions which had been seized by laymen. Incredible was the number of heretics he won back to the bosom of mother Church; and the words of the pope bear witness how greatly he promoted the union of the Greek and Latin churches. His revenues were entirely expended in restoring the beauty of God's house, in building of dwellings for consecrated virgins, and in other pious works. So bountiful was he to the poor, that on one occasion, having nothing wherewith to supply the needs of a certain widow, he ordered his Omnophorion, or episcopal pallium, to be pawned.

The great progress made by the Catholic faith so stirred up the hatred of wicked men against the soldier of Christ, that they determined to put him to death. He knew what was threatening him; and foretold it when preaching to the people. As he was making his visitation at Vitebsk, the murderers broke into his house, striking and wounding all whom they found. Josaphat meekly went to meet them, and accosted them kindly, saying : "My little children, why do you strike my servants? If you have any complaint against me, here I am." Hereupon they rushed on him, overwhelmed him with blows, pierced him with their spears, and at length dispatched him with an axe and threw his body into the river. This took place on the twelfth of November, 1623, in the forty-third year of his age. His body, surrounded with a miraculous light, was rescued from the waters. The martyr's blood won a blessing first of all for his murderers; for, being condemned to death, they nearly all abjured their schism and repented of their crime. (As found in The Liturgical Year.)


The authentically incorrupt body of this great martyr, Saint Josaphat, was on display under an altar on the right transept of the Basilica of Saint Peter in Rome until a few years ago. The incorrupt body of this great saint who spent himself tirelessly for the conversion of the schismatic and heretical Orthodox was moved to a different, less prominent location in order to make way for the artificially preserved body of the thoroughly corrupt Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, who promised silence about Communism in order to purchase the presence of "observers" from the schismatic and heretical Russian Orthodox Church at his "Second" Vatican Council. The aggiornamento of Angelo Roncalli has nothing to do with the conversion of men and nations to the Social Reign of Christ the King and Mary our Immaculate Queen, thus helping to make more possible the madness of a world made mad by the overthrow of this sweet, gentle reign of our King and our Queen. We can never be party to silence on any point of doctrinal or moral truth in "exchange" for some concession given by those steeped in error and/or immorality. Not one compromise. Ever. For any reason.

Keep praying your Rosaries. Entrust all to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. Pray fervently to Saint Joseph, the Patron of the Universal Church and the Protector of the Faithful.

Cheer up. Worse is yet to come, both civilly and ecclesiastically. We must bear the cross of these times with joy and gratitude. It is a privilege to live in these times with such crosses. Each cross is our path to Heaven. Embrace it well and give all to Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, who will defeat all anti-Catholics in the world bar none.

Viva Cristo Rey

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?


Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

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.

Saint Josaphat, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints



Appendix A

Joseph Ratzinger's False Teaching Concerning Judaism


“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.  And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Jesus.  Jesus brings a new meaning to these texts – yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance.  There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said.  And there are also good reasons for referring it to him – that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.(Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, God and the World, p. 209.)

In its work, the Biblical Commission could not ignore the contemporary context, where the shock of the Shoah has put the whole question under a new light. Two main problems are posed: Can Christians, after all that has happened, still claim in good conscience to be the legitimate heirs of Israel's Bible? Have they the right to propose a Christian interpretation of this Bible, or should they not instead, respectfully and humbly, renounce any claim that, in the light of what has happened, must look like a usurpation? The second question follows from the first: In its presentation of the Jews and the Jewish people, has not the New Testament itself contributed to creating a hostility towards the Jewish people that provided a support for the ideology of those who wished to destroy Israel? The Commission set about addressing those two questions. It is clear that a Christian rejection of the Old Testament would not only put an end to Christianity itself as indicated above, but, in addition, would prevent the fostering of positive relations between Christians and Jews, precisely because they would lack common ground. In the light of what has happened, what ought to emerge now is a new respect for the Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament. On this subject, the Document says two things. First it declares that “the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one, in continuity with the Jewish Scriptures of the Second Temple period, a reading analogous to the Christian reading, which developed in parallel fashion” (no. 22). It adds that Christians can learn a great deal from a Jewish exegesis practised for more than 2000 years; in return, Christians may hope that Jews can profit from Christian exegetical research (ibid.). I think this analysis will prove useful for the pursuit of Judeo-Christian dialogue, as well as for the interior formation of Christian consciousness. (Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, Preface to The Jewish People and Their Scriptures in the Christian Bible.)

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.  And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Jesus.  Jesus brings a new meaning to these texts – yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance.  There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said.  And there are also good reasons for referring it to him – that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.” (Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, God and the World, p. 209.)

To the religious leaders present this afternoon, I wish to say that the particular contribution of religions to the quest for peace lies primarily in the wholehearted, united search for God.  Ours is the task of proclaiming and witnessing that the Almighty is present and knowable even when he seems hidden from our sight, that he acts in our world for our good, and that a society’s future is marked with hope when it resonates in harmony with his divine order.  It is God’s dynamic presence that draws hearts together and ensures unity.  In fact, the ultimate foundation of unity among persons lies in the perfect oneness and universality of God, who created man and woman in his image and likeness in order to draw us into his own divine life so that all may be one. ("Pope" Benedict XVI, Courtesy visit to the President of the State of Israel at the presidential palace in Jerusalem, May 11, 2009.)

9. Christians and Jews share to a great extent a common spiritual patrimony, they pray to the same Lord, they have the same roots, and yet they often remain unknown to each other.  It is our duty, in response to God’s call, to strive to keep open the space for dialogue, for reciprocal respect, for growth in friendship, for a common witness in the face of the challenges of our time, which invite us to cooperate for the good of humanity in this world created by God, the Omnipotent and Merciful. (Ratzinger/Benedict at Rome synagogue: ‘May these wounds be healed forever!’ )  

Appendix B

Saint John Chrysostom Contra the Jews (and the Judaizer, Ratzinger/Benedict)

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)




© Copyright 2012, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.