Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
April 17, 2011


Coloring Everything He Says and Does

Part Two

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Immediately after deconstructing the missionary zeal of Saint Paul the Apostle as having nothing to do with an urgency to seek the unconditional conversion of the Gentiles to the Catholic Church, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection turns to the matter of the conversion of the Jews, once again seeking to justify the position that he has stated on numerous occasions both before and after his "election" on April 18, 2005, to succeed Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II that a "Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one" and that Jews do not need to convert to the true Faith in order to save their immortal souls. (See Appendix A below for examples of these heretical remarks.)

Always the master of implication, except when he wants to be direct, Ratzinger/Benedict's discussion of Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection reaffirms the text of the Good Friday Prayer for the Jews that appears in the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that he revised at the best of Talmudists who were upset that he, Ratzinger/Benedict, issued Summorum Pontificum (July 7, 2007) even though it included the Good Friday Prayer for the Jews that had been revised by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII by the excising of the word "perfidious" (faithless). Any notion of conversion is anathema to the Talmudists and their false religion. For a review of the controversy engendered by Ratzinger/Benedict's "revised" Good Friday Prayer for the Jews, please see An Act That Speaks For Itself, No Lessons Learned After Forty Years of Appeasement and Apostasy, Masquerade Party, Telling the Lost Sheep to Stay Lost and Wild Cards or Mirror Images?.

Here is the text of the "revised" Good Friday Prayer for the Jews that will be used for the third year in a row by priests and presbyters of the Motu communities are in a "full, active and conscious" communion with the "pontiff" who blasphemes God so openly by esteeming the symbol of false religions and who propagates one condemned, anathematized proposition after another as they comfort themselves with the thought that they are "inside" what they think is the Catholic Church while other poor unfortunates are simply "disloyal" schismatics who have expelled themselves from the bosom of Holy Mother Church by daring to oppose and withdraw from all association with this blasphemer and arch-heretic:

Oremus et pro Iudaeis. Ut Deus et Dominus noster illuminet corda eorum, ut agnoscant Iesum Christum salvatorem omnium hominum.


Flectamus genua.


Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui vis ut omnes homines salvi fiant et ad agnitionem veritatis veniant, concede propitius, ut plenitudine gentium in Ecclesiam Tuam intrante omnis Israel salvus fiat. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.

Let us pray, and also for the Jews.

May our God and Lord enlighten their hearts, so that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ, saviour of all men.

Let us pray.

Let us kneel.


Almighty and everlasting God, who desirest that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of truth, mercifully grant that, as the fullness of the Gentiles enters into Thy Church, all Israel may be saved. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen.


Ratzinger/Benedict is not faithful to the teaching of the One Whose Vicar He believes himself to be. He is certainly faithful to the precepts of conciliarism, demonstrating that he is indeed committed to his false belief that the Jews somehow please God by their belief in the Old Covenant and that they "pray to "the same Lord" as do Christians, giving no indication at all that their immortal souls are in any jeopardy of being lost for all eternity as they engage in devil worship in their synagogues. 

Here is what Ratzinger/Benedict wrote in Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection concerning the conversion of the Jews, a subject that has been covered in two earlier articles about this book just prior to its release, Impressed With His Own Originality and Accepting "Popes" As Unreliable Teachers:

In this regard, the question of Israel's mission has always been present in the background. We realize today with horror how many misunderstandings with grave consequences have weighed down our history. Yet a new reflection can acknowledge that the beginnings of a correct understanding have always been there, waiting to be rediscovered, however deep in the shadows. (Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection. San Francisco, California: Ignatius Press, 2011, p. 44.)


Ratzinger/Benedict is saying here, whether or not he realizes it, that the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost kept a "correct understanding" of "Israel's mission" deep in the shadows as he pats himself on the back for being one of the "enlightened" Catholics to have "rediscovered" this "true meaning" in order to bring to the world's attention. 

This is worse than hubris.

This is blasphemy in the advance of heresy as it means that God the Holy Ghost failed Pope Eugene IV and the council fathers of the Council of Florence when Cantate Domino was issued on February 4, 1442:

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

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


Ratzinger/Benedict's long held belief about "Israel's mission" is also a rejection of the guidance that God the Holy Ghost gave to Pope Pius XII when he wrote the following in Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943:

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.)


As noted in To Be Loved by the Jews six days ago (and in countless other articles on this site, including Saint Vincent Ferrer and Anti-Saint Vincent Ferrers twelve days ago), Ratzinger/Benedict believes that the crimes committed by the agents of Adolf Hitler's Third Reich against adherents of the Talmud, crimes that were made possible by the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King in Europe wrought by the Protestant Revolution and the subsequent rise of the naturalism of Judeo-Masonry that sought to replace the influence of Holy Mother Church with the religious indifferentism and pluralism of the modern civil state, made it necessary to "evaluate and define in a new way" what he believes is the Catholic Church's relationship with "the Faith of Israel," and it was in that "evaluation" process that Ratzinger/Benedict, among others, "discovered" that the "answer" had been there all along:

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.

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


The missionary work of the true Church entrusted to her by her Divine Founder and Invisible Head, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, is never in need of alteration because of the events of the world. Holy Mother Church has a mission to seek the conversion of all people to the true Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order. To assert otherwise is to make a liar of Truth Incarnate, Christ the King, Who uttered these words to the Eleven before He Ascended to His Co-Equal and Co-Eternal God the Father's right hand in glory on Ascension Thursday forty days after His Resurrection from the dead on Easter Sunday:

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. (Matthew 28: 18-20.)


The first pope, Saint Peter, did not misunderstand this commission as he preached to the Jews on Pentecost Sunday, although, as will be demonstrated shortly, Ratzinger/Benedict believes that the first pope's sermon on Pentecost Sunday was only a "Resurrection proclamation," not an effort at conversion. That is, of course, if the sermon was delivered by Saint Peter at all, a subject that the conciliar "pontiff" tells us he will not take up his book as he leaves his readers with the impression that it is plausible that Saint Peter might not have delivered it as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. More on this boilerplate piece of Modernist revisionism in a short while.

Saint Paul the Apostle did not misunderstand this commission as he preached to his fellow Jews before commencing his mission to the Gentiles.

Saint Stephen the Protomartyr did not misunderstand this commission as he specifically sought the conversion of the Jews.

Saint Vincent Ferrer did not misunderstand this commission as he specifically sought the conversion of Jews in the Iberian Peninsula and southern France at the end of the Fourteenth and the beginning of the Fifteenth Centuries.

The Mother of God herself did not misunderstand this commission as he appeared to the Catholic-hating Jew named Alphonse Ratisbonne in the Church of San Andrea delle Fratte on January 20, 1842, to seek his conversion to the Catholic Faith in the image that is displayed on her Miraculous Medal that he mocked but had begun to wear nevertheless on a dare.

Fathers Maria-Alphonse Ratisbonne and Theodore Ratisbonne did not misunderstand this commission as they sought and received permission from Pope Pius IX to convert their fellow Jews living in Palestine in the middle of the Nineteenth Century.

Saint John Bosco did not misunderstand this commission as he sought the conversion of Jewish schoolmate as a teenager. (See Zealous For Souls Until the Very End.)

For Ratzinger to be correct, of course, God the Holy Ghost had to "keep" the knowledge of the "true mission" of the Church as regards the Jews "secret" until these latter days. This is Gnosticism. He believes that he has been given the "key" to "know" that has been kept hidden for nearly two millennia.

Ratzinger/Benedict can, of course, produce no Patristic sources to support his contention that the "beginnings" of a "correct understanding" of what he thinks is the Catholic Church's relationship to the "faith of Israel" as there is no such evidence whatsoever. Indeed, the Church Fathers wrote quite the contrary of what Ratzinger/Benedict contends, which is why he seeks to reinvent, distort and misrepresent their teaching on a variety of subjects in order to present them as "witnesses" in behalf of conciliarism. Saint John Chrysostom, for example, taught us in no uncertain terms that the synagogue is a place of the devil, not of God (see, yes yet again, his sermons on the Jews in Appendix B below).

Upon whose writing does he rely to justify his contention that are at "the beginnings" of a "correct understanding" of the Catholic Church's relationship to the "faith of Israel"? Hildegard Brem, a Cistercian abbess who hails from (where else?) Germany. It was Hildegard Brem's commentary on a letter sent by Saint Bernard of Clairvaux to Pope Eugene III that Ratzinger/Benedict used to justify his own position that what he thinks is the Catholic Church must not concern herself with the conversion of the Jews:

Here I should like to recall the advice given by Bernard of Clairvaux to his pupil Pope Eugene III on this matter. He reminds the Pope that his duty of care extends not only to Christians but: "You also have obligations toward unbelievers, whether Jew or Greek, or Gentile" (De Consideratione III/1, 2). Then he immediately corrects himself and observers more accurately: "Granted, with regard to the Jews, time excuses you, for them a determined point in time has been fixed, which cannot be anticipated. The full number of Gentiles must come in first. But what do you say about these Gentiles? . . . Why did it seem good to the Fathers . . . to suspend the word of faith, while unbelief was obdurate? Why do we supposed the word that runs swiftly stopped short?" (De Consideratione, III/1, 3.)

Hildegard Brem comments on this passage as follows: "In the light of Romans 11:25, the Church must not concern herself with the conversion of the Jews, since she must wait for the time fixed for this by God, 'until the full number of Gentles comes in' (Rom. 11:25). On the contrary, the Jews themselves are a living homily to which the Church must draw attention, since they call to mind the Lord's suffering (cf. Ep 363 . . ." (quoted in Samtliche Werke, ed. Winkler, I, p. 834.) (Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection, pp 44-45.)


Ratzinger/Benedict has misrepresented the letter of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux to Pope Eugene III, implying that the great Saint Bernard believed that there was no necessity to seek the conversion of the Jews when this was not the case at all. Moreover, the false "pontiff" implies by use of highly selective quotes that Saint Bernard did not believe that those who adhered to the Talmud were in any danger of losing their souls for all eternity. In truth, Saint Bernard was merely urging Pope Eugene III to evangelize those of the Gentiles who had not heard and thus had not as of yet rejected the Gospel as perfidiously as had the Jews, who belonged to a false religion that had the power to save no one. Although Saint Bernard of Clairvaux spoke about "Israel," he did not refer to the "faith of Israel" as he knew that the Jewish faith had been abolished and superseded by the New and Eternal Covenant that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ had instituted on Holy Thursday and ratified by the shedding of every single drip of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday.

Here, courtesy of a Latinist, is a translation of paragraphs two through four of De Consideratione, III that were cited selectively by Ratzinger/Benedict and Hildegard Brem (the translator's interpolations are found in brackets):

2. “What?” you say, “You do not deny that I am in charge and you forbid me to dominate?” Clearly so, as if one who rules in solicitous concern were not ruling well. Isn’t the estate a great concern to the superintendant and young boy, even though a lord, subject to his teacher? Nonetheless, the former is not the owner of the estate and the latter is not the master of his lord. Thus may you be in charge so that you may provide, counsel, manage, and serve. May you rule so that you avail {others}; may you rule as a faithful and prudent servant, whom the Lord has established over his household. To what end? That you give food to them in season, that is to say, that you distribute, not command. Do this, and as a man do not aspire to dominate men, lest all injustice dominate you. But this thing has been made more than sufficiently clear above, when we discussed who you are. Nevertheless, I also add this: I fear for you no poison, no sword more than the lust for dominating. If you are not much deceived, in order to grant yourself much, you certainly think that you have received nothing more from the great apostles. Remember now the words of the man who said, “I am a debtor to the wise and the unwise.” And if you think {the quote} is undue, keep in mind at the same time that the troublesome name of “debtor” agrees more with the person serving than the person dominating. In the Gospel, the servant hears, “How much do you owe my master?” Therefore, if you recognize that you are not a dominator of the wise and the unwise, but a debtor, you must be extraordinarily careful and must consider with all vigilance how those who are not wise may be wise, {how} those who have acted foolishly may come to their senses. But no kind of foolishness, so I should say, is more foolish than unbelief. Therefore, you are a debtor also to the infidels, the Jews, the Greeks [some editions omit the word “Greeks’], and the Gentiles.

3. Consequently, it concerns you to see to it, as much as you can, that the unbelievers are converted to the faith, that they who have been converted are not turned away, and that those who have been turned away return; furthermore, {it concerns you to see to it that} the perverse be ordered to righteousness, {and} the subverted be called back to the truth: {that} the subverters be convinced by invincible reasons, so that either they be freed from faults, if it can be done, or if not, that they lose their authority and power of subverting others. You must not wholly neglect this worse class of the unwise, the heretics and schismatics, I mean: for these are subverted and subverters; hounds for tearing, foxes for deception. Men of this sort will be, I say, either corrected with great effort lest they perish or restrained lest they destroy. Let it be that concerning the Jews, time excuses you: they have their limit that will not be able to be anticipated [other editions read “omitted”]. It is necessary that the fullness of the Gentiles come in first.

4. What reason for pretending is there for us? By what assurance, by what conscience do we not assuredly offer Christ to those who do not have {Him}? Do we hold back the truth of God in injustice? Indeed it is necessary whenever the fullness of the Gentiles arrives. Do we wait so that the faith falls upon them? Who has arrived at belief by accident? How will they believe without a preacher? Peter was sent to Cornelius, Philip to the eunuch; and if we look for a more recent example, Augustine, chosen by St. Gregory, handed over the model of the faith to the English. About these things, you {should consider them} thus with yourself. I also add {something} concerning the pertinacity of the Greeks, who are with us and not with us, joined in faith, divided in peace, although in the faith itself they have limped from the straight paths. And likewise concerning heresy, which creeps quietly almost everywhere; among some, it rages openly. For, far and wide and publicly, it hastens to swallow up the little ones of the Church. Do you ask where this may be? Your own people [other editions read “men], who so often visit the land of the South, behold! They know and they can tell you. They go and they return through the midst of them, or they pass through alongside; but what good they have accomplished with them up to now, we have not yet heard. And perhaps we might have heard if the salvation of the people of Spain had not become cheap on account of gold. It is your responsibility to provide a remedy for this plague also. (Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, De Consideratione, III, translated provided as a courtesy to this writer. Full Latin text and link thereto provided in Appendix C below.)


While it is true that Saint Bernard sought to defend Jews against the murderous designs of the mad monk named Radulph, he did so because he was defending the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment while at the same time trying prevent souls for whom Our Lord had shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood to redeem from being dispatched to Hell by dying outside of the Catholic Faith. He made his concerns in this regard abundantly clear, something that Pope Benedict XIV cited in A Quo Primum, June 14, 1751:

The famous monk, Radulph, inspired long ago by an excess of zeal, was so inflamed against the Jews that he traversed Germany and France in the twelfth century and, by preaching against the Jews as the enemies of our holy religion, incited Christians to destroy them. This resulted in the deaths of a very large number of Jews. What must we think his deeds or thoughts would be if he were now alive and saw what was happening in Poland? But the great St. Bernard opposed this immoderate and maddened zeal of Radulph, and wrote to the clergy and people of eastern France: "The Jews are not to be persecuted: they are not to be slaughtered: they are not even to be driven out. Examine the divine writings concerning them. We read in the psalm a new kind of prophecy concerning the Jews: God has shown me, says the Church, on the subject of my enemies, not to slay them in case they should ever forget my people. Alive, however, they are eminent reminders for us of the Lord's suffering. On this account they are scattered through all lands in order that they may be witnesses to Our redemption while they pay the just penalties for so great a crime" (epistle 363). And he writes this to Henry, Archbishop of Mainz: "Doesn't the Church every day triumph more fully over the Jews in convicting or converting them than if once and for all she destroyed them with the edge of the sword: Surely it is not in vain that the Church has established the universal prayer which is offered up for the faithless Jews from the rising of the sun to its setting, that the Lord God may remove the veil from their hearts, that they may be rescued from their darkness into the light of truth. For unless it hoped that those who do not believe would believe, it would obviously be futile and empty to pray for them." (epistle 365). (Pope Benedict XIV, A Quo Primum, June 14, 1751.)


Yes, one can always count on Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI to distort and misrepresent the truth and to rely upon those who do so themselves as Hildegard Brem edited Saint Bernard's discussion of the role that the Jews serve today, conveniently omitting the following sentence from Saint Bernard's epistle (letter) 363:

"On this account they are scattered through all lands in order that they may be witnesses to Our redemption while they pay the just penalties for so great a crime." (For two other quotes from Saint Bernard about the Jews, please see Appendix D below.)


How can those such as Ratzinger/Benedict and Hildegard Brem quote a line that speaks of the guilt of the Jews for the sin of Deicide when they do not believe that they share such a guilt? Ratzinger/Benedict does not speak about the Jews paying the "just penalties for so great a crime," does he? And Saint Bernard's plea for the Church to triumph over the Jews by converting them is not exactly the language of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI or the man he will "beatify" two weeks from today, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II.

Although the Church has not organized a "worldwide mission" to seek the conversion of the Jews since the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, Pope Pius IX, as mentioned above, did authorize the missionary work of the Jewish converts, Fathers Theodore and Marie-Alphonse Ratisbonne, to take place in Palestine, and Pope Saint Pius X told the founder of International Zionism that the Church stood ready to open churches to baptize the Jews should they move from Europe to Palestine:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POPE: Must it be Jerusalem?

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

POPE: We cannot be in favor of it.

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

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

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


Was the truth of the matter "hidden" from Pope Saint Pius X? Or is it that the great of Modernism believed in the Catholic Faith, not the synthetic Modernist creed espoused by the likes of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI?

Although the iniquitous role played by those who adhere to the Talmud is indeed one filled with mystery in accordance with the designs of God, Catholics understand that while contemporary Talmudists have played and continue to play a role in persecuting the Mystical Body of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ just as their Abrahamic predecessors persecuted Our Lord Himself and the Apostles and their disciples in the very flesh, it is still nevertheless a dereliction of our duty as disciples of Christ the King to refrain from seeking the conversion of the Jews whose God's Holy Providence places in our path. The last time I looked, my friends, instructing the ignorant and admonishing the sinner were two of the Spiritual Works of Mercy, and those are not superseded by Ratzinger/Benedict's "discovery" of a new way of relating to the "faith of Israel."

Authentic charity wills the good of all others, the ultimate expression of which is the salvation of his immortal soul. We love no one authentically if we do or say anything, whether by omission or commission, that interferes in any way with the salvation of his soul. The conciliar "popes" have thus demonstrated themselves to be the sworn enemies of the Talmudists before whom they have appeared and upon some of whom they have awarded "papal" knighthoods and medals as these "popes" have, at least by implication, reaffirmed them in the "goodness" of a false religion that is hideous in the sight of the true God of Divine Revelation.

What Pentecost Sunday Sermon?

Many articles on this site have contrasted Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's refusal to seek the conversion of the Jews on the multiple occasions he has ventured into a Talmudic synagogue to be treated as a inferior with the discourse given by Saint Peter on Pentecost Sunday following the descent of God the Holy Ghost in tongues of flame upon him and the other Apostles and Our Lady and those others gathered in the same Upper Room in Jerusalem  I will want to quote that first papal address once again as a prelude to a mercifully brief discussion of Ratzinger/Benedict's efforts to deconstruct according to the fashion of Modernists:


Ye men of Judea, and all you that dwell in Jerusalem, be this known to you, and with your ears receive my words. For these are not drunk, as you suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day:

But this is that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel: And it shall come to pass, in the last days, (saith the Lord,) I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams. And upon my servants indeed, and upon my handmaids will I pour out in those days of my spirit, and they shall prophesy. And I will shew wonders in the heaven above, and signs on the earth beneath: blood and fire, and vapour of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and manifest day of the Lord come.

And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved. Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him, in the midst of you, as you also know: This same being delivered up, by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you by the hands of wicked men have crucified and slain. Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the sorrows of hell, as it was impossible that he should be holden by it. For David saith concerning him: I foresaw the Lord before my face: because he is at my right hand, that I may not be moved.

For this my heart hath been glad, and any tongue hath rejoiced: moreover my flesh also shall rest in hope. Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, nor suffer thy Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life: thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. Ye men, brethren, let me freely speak to you of the patriarch David; that he died, and was buried; and his sepulchre is with us to this present day. Whereas therefore he was a prophet, and knew that God hath sworn to him with an oath, that of the fruit of his loins one should sit upon his throne.

Foreseeing this, he spoke of the resurrection of Christ. For neither was he left in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised again, whereof all we are witnesses. Being exalted therefore by the right hand of God, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath poured forth this which you see and hear. For David ascended not into heaven; but he himself said: The Lord said to my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy enemies thy footstool.

Therefore let all the house of Israel know most certainly, that God hath made both Lord and Christ, this same Jesus, whom you have crucified. Now when they had heard these things, they had compunction in their heart, and said to Peter, and to the rest of the apostles: What shall we do, men and brethren? But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call. And with very many other words did he testify and exhort them, saying: Save yourselves from this perverse generation.

They therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls. And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers. And fear came upon every soul: many wonders also and signs were done by the apostles in Jerusalem, and there was great fear in all. And all they that believed, were together, and had all things common. Their possessions and goods they sold, and divided them to all, according as every one had need. (Acts 2: 14-41.)


Here is how Saint Peter's Pentecost Sunday sermon is deconstructed by Ratzinger/Benedict in Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection:

From a theological understanding of the empty tomb, a passage from Saint Peter's Pentecost sermon strikes me as important, when Peter for the first time openly proclaims Jesus' Resurrection to the assembled crowds. He communicates it, not in his own words, but by quoting Psalm 16:8-10 as follows: "... my flesh will dwell in hope. For you will not abandon my son to Hades, nor let your Holy One see corruption. You have made known to me the ways of life" (Acts 2:26-28). Peter quotes the psalm text using the version found in the Greek Bible. The Hebrew text is slightly different: "You do not give me up to Sheol, or let your godly one see the Pit. You show me the path of life" (Ps. 16:10-11). In the Hebrew version the psalmist speaks in the certainty that God will protect him, even in the threatening situation in which he evidently finds himself, that God will shield him from death and that he may dwell securely: he will not see the grave. The version Peter quotes is different: here the psalmist is confident that he will not remain in the underworld, that he will not see corruption.

Peter takes it for granted that it was David who originally prayed this psalm, and he goes on to state that this hope was not fulfilled in David: "He both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day" (Acts 2:29). The tomb containing his corpse is the proof of his not having risen. Yet the psalm text is still true: it applies to the definitive David. Indeed, Jesus is revealed here as the true David, precisely because in him this promise is fulfilled: "You will not let your Holy One see corruption."

We need not go into the question here of whether this address goes back to Peter and, if not, who else may have redacted it and precisely when and where it originated. Whatever the answer may be, we are dealing here with a primitive form of Resurrection proclamation, whose high authority in the early Church is clear from the fact that it was attributed to Saint Peter himself and was regarded as the original proclamation of the Resurrection. (Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection, pp. 255-256.)


Left unaddressed in this classic piece of Modernist deconstruction of Sacred Scripture that is a blasphemous affront to God the Holy Ghost and to Saint Peter is the little matter that three thousand Jews from all over the Mediterranean converted because of the stirring words delivered by our first pope moments after he had received the Seven Gifts and Twelve Fruits of God the Holy Ghost, being blessed at that moment with the charism of infallibility of doctrine. Ratzinger/Benedict has to place into question, no matter how subtly by way of refusing address the question that he raises, the fact that Saint Peter delivered this sermon as to admit openly that it is the case is to damn himself for refusing to speak to Jews as Saint Peter did.

Moreover, as we know that Saint Peter did deliver this sermon and that the Acts of the Apostles was written by Saint Luke under the inspiration of God the Holy Ghost, to assert that Saint Peter was wrong about the authorship of Psalm 16, attributing it "incorrectly" to King David, is to mock the papal infallibility with which our first pope had just been clothed by the same God the Holy Ghost. 

Consider this fact, my friends. Consider it if only for a moment.

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, that "master" of true Scripture exegesis who believes his insights superior to those of Holy Mother Church's Fathers and Doctors, including the Angelic Doctor, Saint Thomas Aquinas, has identified the first "papal error" for us, committed moments after Saint Peter received the Gifts and Fruits of God the Holy Ghost. If only Saint Peter had had the benefit of Ratzinger/Benedict's training with all of its "access" to sources not known to the fisherman from Galilee, he would not have made such a blunder.

Thus it is that the current conciliar "pope's" disregard for the work of our true popes far beyond those foes of liberalism such as Popes Gregory XVI and Pius IX and the the foe of Modernism, Pope Saint Pius X, as well as the sainted pontiff's predecessor, Pope Leo XIII, who taught repeatedly that the civil state has a duty to recognize the true religion and to accord her the favor and the protection of the laws. It is necessary in Ratzinger/Benedict's view to place into question the very reality of Saint Peter's Pentecost Sunday sermon as a coherent whole and to point out his "error" that is no error at all. 

Ratzinger/Benedict, although a partial critic of the historical-critical method that he believes that he has transcended in his new book with his own kind of "hermeneutic" of Scriptural exegesis, is a prisoner of one Modernist presupposition after another. To believe that someone other than Saint Peter is responsible for the Pentecost Sunday sermon is to use the exact sort of Modernist methodology condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907:


Then the philosopher must come in again to enjoin upon the historian the obligation of following in all his studies the precepts and laws of evolution. It is next for the historian to scrutinize his documents once more, to examine carefully the circumstances and conditions affecting the Church during the different periods, the conserving force she has put forth, the needs both internal and external that have stimulated her to progress, the obstacles she has had to encounter, in a word, everything that helps to determine the manner in which the laws of evolution have been fulfilled in her. This done, he finishes his work by drawing up a history of the development in its broad lines. The critic follows and fits in the rest of the documents. He sets himself to write. The history is finished. Now We ask here: Who is the author of this history? The historian? The critic? Assuredly neither of these but the philosopher. From beginning to end everything in it is a priori, and an apriorism that reeks of heresy. These men are certainly to be pitied, of whom the Apostle might well say: "They became vain in their thoughts...professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.''18 At the same time, they excite resentment when they accuse the Church of arranging and confusing the texts after her own fashion, and for the needs of her cause. In this they are accusing the Church of something for which their own conscience plainly reproaches them.

34. The result of this dismembering of the records, and this partition of them throughout the centuries is naturally that the Scriptures can no longer be attributed to the authors whose names they bear. The Modernists have no hesitation in affirming generally that these books, and especially the Pentateuch and the first three Gospels, have been gradually formed from a primitive brief narration, by additions, by interpolations of theological or allegorical interpretations, or parts introduced only for the purpose of joining different passages together. This means, to put it briefly and clearly, that in the Sacred Books we must admit a vital evolution, springing from and corresponding with the evolution of faith. The traces of this evolution, they tell us, are so visible in the books that one might almost write a history of it. Indeed, this history they actually do write, and with such an easy assurance that one might believe them to have seen with their own eyes the writers at work through the ages amplifying the Sacred Books. To aid them in this they call to their assistance that branch of criticism which they call textual, and labor to show that such a fact or such a phrase is not in its right place, adducing other arguments of the same kind. They seem, in fact, to have constructed for themselves certain types of narration and discourses, upon which they base their assured verdict as to whether a thing is or is not out of place. Let him who can judge how far they are qualified in this way to make such distinctions. To hear them descant of their works on the Sacred Books, in which they have been able to discover so much that is defective, one would imagine that before them nobody ever even turned over the pages of Scripture. The truth is that a whole multitude of Doctors, far superior to them in genius, in erudition, in sanctity, have sifted the Sacred Books in every way, and so far from finding in them anything blameworthy have thanked God more and more heartily the more deeply they have gone into them, for His divine bounty in having vouchsafed to speak thus to men. Unfortunately. these great Doctors did not enjoy the same aids to study that are possessed by the Modernists for they did not have for their rule and guide a philosophy borrowed from the negation of God, and a criterion which consists of themselves. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)


There is no need for any believing Catholic to waste their time and money on a book that is filled with blasphemies and heresies, a book that undermines the Holy Faith rather than feeding it, a book written by a man who has the gall to believe that he has "discovered" things that were kept "hidden" from us until now, a book that dismisses the Fathers and the Doctors of Holy Mother Church in exactly the same manner described above by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis.

Although the constraints of time have restricted my commentaries thus far to a few passages in Ratzinger/Benedict's hideous book, which does indeed color everything he says and does in his "pontificate" that will enter its seventh destructive year on Monday of Holy Week, April 18, I will provide other commentaries in the next few months as time and the circumstances of the moment permit. For now, however, this is quite enough.

Catholics can read Dom Prosper Gueranger's The Liturgical Year for Holy Week inspiration and edification. Catholics can read any number of other legitimate reflections, including those of Father Frederick Faber (The Foot of the Cross/The Dolors of Mary and The Precious Blood), on the events of Our Lord's Passion, Death and Resurrection. Mystics such as Anne Katherine Emmerich (The Dolorous Passion of the Christ) and Mary of Agreda (The Mystical City of God) and Saint Bridget of Sweden have provided us with much food for rich spiritual meditation. We do not need--and indeed must reject categorically--the heretical, blasphemous "insights" of the likes of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.

It is perhaps telling that the false "pontiff" signed his own name as follows in the foreword to Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection as follows: "Joseph Ratzinger, Benedict XVI." He omitted the title of "pope." Ah, yes, truth comes out in the strangest ways, does it not?

We have entered into Holy Week. Let us not be like the fickle people in the crowd in Jerusalem who cried out "Hosanna!" with shouts of joy as they threw palm fronds and waved olive branches as Our Lord entered Jerusalem just five days before most of them cried out "Give us Barabbas!" when Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor seeking to appease the Pharisees because he needed their cooperation against the Zealots, gave them a choice of releasing Our Lord or the insurrectionist and murderer who was promising them political liberation from Roman oppression at the point of the sword, Barabbas. We need to be faithful throughout the course of this Holy Week as we maintain, if not intensify, our Lenten penances prior to the Easter Vigil Mass on Saturday morning or evening (whenever it is celebrated in the fully traditional venue that is near you, if you are near such a venue at all, of course).

In order to be faithful and not fickle during this Holy Week, we need the help and protection and maternal intercession of Our Lady, who suffered with her Divine Son, Our Lord, as He underwent His fearful Passion and Death.

We have offended Our Lord so much by means of our sins, causing His Most Blessed Mother's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart to be pierced through and through with those Swords of Sorrow. Aided by assistance, if at all possible, at Holy Mass throughout Holy Week, especially on Maundy Thursday for the anniversary of the institution of the Holy Priesthood and the Holy Eucharist and at the Good Friday services and the Easter Vigil on Saturday, and by our daily Rosaries and by making the Stations of the Cross every day, keep this Holy Week of 2011 as we have never kept it before so that Catholicism and it alone will be the only thing that colors everything we do, say or think so that we can demonstrate to all people, Catholic and non-Catholic alike an integrity of life that, despite our own venial faults and failings, might help them to walk more faithfully and patiently along the Via Dolorosa as they carry their own daily crosses to Calvary--and from them to the promise of their own empty tomb on the Last Day at the General Judgment of the living and the dead.

To get through this Holy Week as a preparation to get home to an unending Easter Sunday of glory in Paradise, we need the assistance of Our Lady. Let us not tarry to call upon her to help us enter deep into the mysteries of her Divine Son's Passion and Death through which she lived and suffered as the Queen of Martyrs.

A blessed Palm Sunday and Holy Week to you all.

We must cleave to the Catholic Church, not to the counterfeit church of conciliarism, as we attempt to plant the seeds for the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary as we seek to live more and more penitentially, making reparation to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary for our own many sins and for those of the whole word.

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.


Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!


Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

Appendix A

Joseph Ratzinger's Repeated Blasphemies About Divine Revelation and the Jews

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)


Appendix C

Latin Text of Saint Bernard's De Consideratione III

426 CAPUT PRIMUM. Pontificis esse, non tam ut omnes suo dominio subjiciat, sed ut omnes, quantum fieri potest, ad Ecclesiae gremium perducat.


1. Finis superioris libri huic principium ponit. Itaque juxta promissum illius consideranda quae sub te sunt. Quaenam sint illa, non est quod a me quaerendum putes, sacerdotum optime Eugeni; rectius fortasse quae non sint quaeras. Orbe exeundum ei qui forte volet explorare quae non ad tuam pertinent curam. Parentes tui destinati sunt non aliquas regiones, sed ipsum debellaturi orbem: Ite in orbem universum (Marc. XVI, 15), dictum est illis. Ipsi vero vendentes tunicas, emere gladios, ignitum eloquium et spiritum vehementem, arma potentia Deo. Quo non pervenerunt victores inclyti, filii 0757C excussorum? Quo non sagittae potentium acutae cum carbonibus desolatoriis? (Psal. CXIX, 4.) Et quidem in omnem terram exivit sonus eorum, et in fines orbis terrae verba eorum (Psal. XVIII, 5). Penetrabant 0758B et incendebant verba illa incensa igni, quem Dominus misit in terram (Luc XII, 49). Occumbebant strenuissimi bellatores, sed non succumbebant: triumphabant et mortui. Nimis confortatus est principatus eorum (Psal. CXXXVIII, 17): constituti sunt principes super omnem terram (Psal. XLIV, 17). Eis tu successisti in haereditatem. Ita tu haeres et orbis haereditas. At quatenus haec portio te contingit, aut contigerit illos, id sobria consideratione pensandum. Non enim per omnem reor modum, sed sane quodam tenus (ut mihi videtur) dispensatio tibi super illum credita est, non data possessio. Si pergis usurpare et hanc, contradicit tibi qui dicit: Meus est orbis terrae et plenitudino ejus (Psal. XLIX, 12). Non tu ille de quo propheta: Et erit omnis terra 0758C possessio ejus (Psal. CIII, 24). Christus hic est, qui possessionem sibi vindicat, et jure creationis, et merito redemptionis, et dono Patris. Cui enim alteri dictum est, Postula a me, et dabo tibi gentes haereditatem 0759A tuam, et possessionem tuam terminos terrae (Psal. II, 8). Possessionem et dominium cede huic: tu curam illius habe. Pars tua haec: ultra ne extendas manum.

2. Quid, inquis? non negas praeesse et dominari vetas? Plane sic. Quasi non bene praesit, qui praeest in sollicitudine. Numquid non et villa villico et parvus dominus subjectus est paedagogo? Nec tamen villae ille, nec is sui domini dominus est. Ita et tu praesis ut provideas, ut consulas, ut procures, ut serves. Praesis ut prosis; praesis ut fidelis servus et prudens, quem constituit Dominus super familiam suam. Ad quid? Ut des illis escam in tempore (Matth. XXIV, 45); hoc est, ut dispenses, non imperes. Hoc fac et dominari ne affectes hominum homo, ut non dominetur 0759B tui omnis injustitia. At satis superque id intimatum supra, cum, quis sis, disputaretur. Addo tamen et hoc: nam nullum tibi venenum, nullum gladium plus formido, quam libidinem dominandi. Certe ut multum tibi tribuas, si multum deceptus non es, nil te existimas plus accepisse a magnis Apostolis. Recordare nunc vocis illius: Sapientibus et insipientibus debitor sum (Rom. I, 14). Et si non indebitam tibi ipsam censes, hoc quoque simul memento, debitoris molestum nomen servienti potius, quam dominanti congruere. Servus in Evangelio audit: Quantum debes domino meo? (Luc. XVI, 5.) Ergo si te agnoscis sapientibus et insipientibus non dominatorem, sed debitorem, curandum summopere tibi et tota vigilantia considerandum, quomodo et 0759C qui non sapiunt sapiant et qui desipuere resipiscant. At nullum genus insipientiae infidelitate, ut sic loquar, insipientius. Ergo 427 et infidelibus debitor es, Judaeis, Graecis [al. omit. Graecis] et Gentibus.

3. Interest proinde tua, dare operam quam possis, ut increduli convertantur ad fidem, conversi non avertantur, aversi revertantur: porro perversi ordinentur ad rectitudinem, subversi ad veritatem revocentur: subversores invictis rationibus convincantur, ut vel emendentur ipsi, si fieri potest; vel si non, perdant auctoritatem facultatemque alios subvertendi. Non omnino et ab hoc insipientium genere pessimo tibi dissimulandum. Dico autem haereticos schismaticosque: nam hi sunt subversi, et subversores; 0759D canes ad scissionem, vulpes ad fraudem. Erunt, inquam, hujusmodi maxime tuo studio aut corrigendi, ne pereant; aut ne perimant, coercendi. Esto, de Judaeis excusat te tempus: habent terminum suum qui praeveniri [al., praeteriri] non poterit. Plenitudinem gentium praeire oportet. Sed de ipsis gentibus quid respondes? Imo quid tua consideratio respondet tibi percunctanti sic? Quid visum est patribus ponere metam Evangelio, verbum suspendere fidei, donec infidelitas durat? Qua ratione, putamus, substitit velociter currens sermo? (Psal. CXLVII, 15.) quis primus inhibuit hunc salutarem cursum? Et 0760A illis causa forte quam nescimus, aut necessitas potuit obstitisse.

4. Nobis quae dissimulandi ratio est? Qua fiducia, qua conscientia Christum non vel offerimus eis qui non habent? An veritatem Dei in injustitia detinemus? Et quidem quandoque perveniat gentium plenitudo necesse est. Exspectamus ut in eas incidat fides? Cui credere casu contigit? Quomodo credent sine praedicante? (Rom. X, 14.) Petrus ad Cornelium, Philippus ad eunuchum missi sunt (Act. X, 20, et VIII, 26), et, si exemplum recentius quaeremus, Augustinus a beato Gregorio destinatus, formam fidei tradidit Anglis. Et de his tu ita tecum. Ego addo et de pertinacia Graecorum, qui nobiscum sunt, et nobiscum non sunt, juncti fide, pace divisi, quanquam 0760B et in fide ipsa claudicaverint a semitis rectis. Et item de haeresi, quae clam pene ubique serpit; apud aliquos saevit palam. Nam parvulos Ecclesiae passim et publice deglutire festinat. Quaeris ubi sit hoc? Vestri [al., viri], qui terram Austri tam saepe visitant, ecce hi sciunt et possunt dicere tibi. Eunt et redeunt per medium illorum, aut transeunt secus: sed quid boni adhuc cum illis egerint, necdum audivimus. Et forsitan audissemus, nisi prae auro Hispaniae salus populi viluisset. Tuum est et plagae huic remedium providere.

5. Sed est insipientia, quae ipsam quoque jam propemodum stultam fecit sapientiam fidei. Quomodo et ipsam Catholicam pene totam hoc virus infecit? Nam dum et in ipsa quique quae nostra 0760C sunt quaerimus, fit ut invicem invidentes, invicem provocantes, exerceamur ad odia, animemur ad injurias, armemur ad lites, cavillemur ad dolos, feramur ad detractiones, prorumpamus ad maledicta, opprimamur a fortioribus, opprimamus infirmiores. Quam digne et laudabiliter occupatur meditatio cordis tui adversus tam pestilens insipientiae genus, quod corpus ipsum Christi, quae est multitudo credentium, occupasse consideras? O ambitio ambientium crux! quomodo omnes torquens, omnibus places? Nil acerbius cruciat, nil molestius inquietat; nil tamen apud miseros mortales celebrius negotiis ejus. An non limina Apostolorum plus jam ambitio, quam devotio terit? At non vocibus ejus vestrum 0760D tota die resultat palatium? An non quaestibus ejus tota legum canonumque disciplina insudat? An non spoliis ejus omnis Italica inhiat inexplebili aviditate rapacitas? Quid ita, imo quid aliud tua ipsius spiritualia studia non saltem intercidit, sed abscidit. Quoties sancta ac fecunda tua abortiri otia fecit inquietum et inquietans malum? Aliud est quod ab oppressis 428 appellatur ad te, aliud autem quod ambitio in Ecclesia per te regnare molitur. Nec deesse illis, nec huic aliquatenus assentire oportet. Quam vero inique fovetur illa, spernuntur illi! utrisque tamen debitor es, illis ut erigas, istis ut reprimas. ("De consideratione" - Bernardus Claraevallensis.)


Appendix D

Quotes from Saint Bernard on the Jews

We are told by the Apostle that when the time is ripe all Israel shall be saved. But those who die beforehand will remain in death. ~ St. Bernard of Clairvaux

O intelligence coarse, dense, and, as it were, cow-like, which did not recognize God, even in His own works! Perhaps the Jew will complain that I call his intelligence bovine. But let him read what is said by the prophet Isaias, and he will find that his intelligence is even less than bovine. For Isaias says: "The ox knows his Owner, and the ass knows his Master's crib; but Israel has not known Me, and My people have not understood" (i.3). You see, O Jew, I am easier on you than your own prophet. I have compared you to brute beasts, but he places you even below them! ~ St. Bernard of Clairvaux  (Quotes compiled by a man named Michael Malone. One can find other choice "non-ecumenical" quotes from various saints that would not meet with the approval of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. Some of the quotes are from our true popes of the past.)



© Copyright 2011, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.