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:
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). . . .
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. 
"And it is now," says the great St. Ambrose, speaking of the pierced
side of Christ, "that it is built, it is now that it is formed, it is
now that is .... molded, it is now that it is created . . . Now it is
that arises a spiritual house, a holy priesthood."  One who reverently examines this venerable teaching will easily discover the reasons on which it is based.
29.And first of all, by the death of our
Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been
abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries,
enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole
world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine
Savior was preaching in a restricted area -- He was not sent but to the
sheep that were lost of the house of Israel  -the Law and the Gospel were together in force;  but on the gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees,  fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross,  establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. 
"To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the
Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the
Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one
Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the
innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently
from top to bottom." 
30. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death,  in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; 
and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family
in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that
our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head in His Church.
"For it was through His triumph on the Cross," according to the teaching
of the Angelic and Common Doctor, "that He won power and dominion over
the gentiles"; 
by that same victory He increased the immense treasure of graces,
which, as He reigns in glory in heaven, He lavishes continually on His
mortal members it was by His blood shed on the Cross that God's anger
was averted and that all the heavenly gifts, especially the spiritual
graces of the New and Eternal Testament, could then flow from the
fountains of our Savior for the salvation of men, of the faithful above
all; it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into
possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical
Body; for they would not have been united to this Mystical Body. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)
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:
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
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
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
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.)
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!’ )
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
(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)