Making Judas Seem Admirable
by Thomas A. Droleskey
Unfailingly wrong. Predictably apostate. Utterly without shame as Christ the King is betrayed yet again to His ancient enemies who have made war against His Holy Name and His Holy Church. Accompanied by a legion of positivistic defenders as they cater to the people who take delight in conciliarism's abandonment of the confessionally Catholic state and its refusal to seek with urgency the unconditional conversion of non-Catholics, including members of their own perfidious false sect, to the Catholic Church.
How else can one describe the incredible boldness of the scions of the counterfeit church of conciliarism as they manifest themselves to be nothing other than spiritual robber barons who fear not to offend God as they deceive the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross this very Week of Weeks? Why should the apostates fear to offend God when they can count on a bevy of self-righteous, sanctimonious defenders to descend to the depths of intellectual dishonesty to make their predictably shameless acts of apostasy seem like acts of fidelity to Christ the King. How am I doing, Saint Jerome?
Let's cut to the chase here, ladies and gentlemen. Let's cut to the chase.
The counterfeit church of conciliarism has been catering to the "feelings" of pagans and infidels and heretics and schismatics ever since the "Second" Vatican Council embarked upon its Judeo-Masonic program of "opening up to the world." The counterfeit church of conciliarism has, despite some seemingly carefully nuanced qualifications at the beginning of Dignitatis Humanae, made its "peace" with the religiously indifferentist state, whose existence is considered an "absolute truth" by the leaders of the Judeo-Masonic ethos (as will be explored in an upcoming article). Can anyone with an ounce of the sensus Catholicus and a scintilla of intellectual honesty (gee, remember that virtue?) contend that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI agrees with Pope Saint Pius X's simple, declarative reiteration of Catholic concerning concerning the falsity of the separation of Church and State as contained in this paragraph from Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906?
That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. Our illustrious predecessor, Leo XIII, especially, has frequently and magnificently expounded Catholic teaching on the relations which should subsist between the two societies. "Between them," he says, "there must necessarily be a suitable union, which may not improperly be compared with that existing between body and soul.-"Quaedam intercedat necesse est ordinata colligatio (inter illas) quae quidem conjunctioni non immerito comparatur, per quam anima et corpus in homine copulantur." He proceeds: "Human societies cannot, without becoming criminal, act as if God did not exist or refuse to concern themselves with religion, as though it were something foreign to them, or of no purpose to them.... As for the Church, which has God Himself for its author, to exclude her from the active life of the nation, from the laws, the education of the young, the family, is to commit a great and pernicious error. -- "Civitates non possunt, citra scellus, gerere se tamquam si Deus omnino non esset, aut curam religionis velut alienam nihilque profuturam abjicere.... Ecclesiam vero, quam Deus ipse constituit, ab actione vitae excludere, a legibus, ab institutione adolescentium, a societate domestica, magnus et perniciousus est error."
Can anyone with a ounce of the sensus Catholicus and a scintilla of intellectual honesty (gee, remember that virtue?) claim that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI adheres to Pope Pius VII's simple, declarative reiteration of the heretical nature of the concept of civil and religious liberty extolled by Modernity and Modernism as contained in Post Tam Diuturnas, April 29, 1814?
But a much more grave, and indeed very bitter, sorrow increased in Our heart - a sorrow by which We confess that We were crushed, overwhelmed and torn in two - from the twenty-second article of the constitution in which We saw, not only that "liberty of religion and of conscience" (to use the same words found in the article) were permitted by the force of the constitution, but also that assistance and patronage were promised both to this liberty and also to the ministers of these different forms of "religion". There is certainly no need of many words, in addressing you, to make you fully recognize by how lethal a wound the Catholic religion in France is struck by this article. For when the liberty of all "religions" is indiscriminately asserted, by this very fact truth is confounded with error and the holy and immaculate Spouse of Christ, the Church, outside of which there can be no salvation, is set on a par with the sects of heretics and with Judaic perfidy itself. For when favour and patronage is promised even to the sects of heretics and their ministers, not only their persons, but also their very errors, are tolerated and fostered: a system of errors in which is contained that fatal and never sufficiently to be deplored HERESY which, as St. Augustine says (de Haeresibus, no.72), "asserts that all heretics proceed correctly and tell the truth: which is so absurd that it seems incredible to me."
No honest individual can claim that Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI adhere to the consistent, unbroken teaching of the Catholic Church concerning the duty of the civil state to recognize the true Church as its official religion and to help to foster those conditions in civil society wherein its citizens can better sanctify and to save their souls as members of the Catholic Church. Wojtyla spoke and Ratzinger is speaking ad nauseam and ad infinitum concerning the "truth" of the falsehood of the separation of Church and State, extolling the lie that is the slogan of a "healthy secularity" and the heresy that is religious liberty. Both of these Modernists have stated publicly that adherents of false religions have an absolute right to propagate themselves in civil society and have praised the "beliefs" of false religions, each of which is an abomination in the sight of the Most Holy Trinity, Who abhors each and every false religion, as means of providing "order and justice" within nations and "peace" among nations.
Caiphas, the High Priest of Jerusalem in the year 33 A.D., could not have devised a program more amenable to the leadership of the Sanhedrin than has been devised and implemented by the counterfeit church of conciliarism and has been rationalized as Catholic by "conservatives" within the conciliar structures at first and by latter day positivists who believe that truth must be cast aside in the interests of a strategic program to promote Summorum Pontificum.
We have witnessed silence from the conservatives and the latter day positivists as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has blasphemed the honor and the majesty of God by calling a mountain in Japan upon which Buddhists worship their devils as "sacred." Sacred? As I have been noting repeatedly in the past seven and one-half months, there has been no outrage about this. It has been ignored as though it never happened, as though it doesn't matter. Well, it matters to God. Shouldn't it matter to us?
"Know this: it is by very little breaches of regularity that the devil succeeds in introducing the greatest abuses. May you never end up saying: 'This is nothing, this is an exaggeration.'" (Saint Teresa of Avila, Foundations, Chapter Twenty-nine)
But it is vain for them to adopt the name of catholic, as they do not oppose these blasphemies: they must believe them, if they can listen so patiently to such words. (Pope Saint Leo the Great, Epistle XIV, To Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica, St. Leo the Great | Letters 1-59 )
Voices which used to thunder--and rightly and admiringly so--when Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II participated in pagan rituals and praised pagan shamans and other assorted devil worshipers have grown mute in the wake of the news that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is going to receive "gifts" from representatives of various false religions:
WASHINGTON—Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Jain and Hindu communities will meet with Pope Benedict XVI April 17, at the Pope John Paul II Cultural Center during the April 15-20 papal visit to the United States.
The meeting will include a papal address, greetings from inter-faith leaders and the presentation of symbolic gifts by young members of each community.
Bishop Richard Sklba, chair of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, noted that the theme Religions Working for Peace will run through the meeting, to which 200 leaders have been invited.
“The cry for peace in our world calls for religious bodies to come together,” Bishop Sklba said. “This meeting denotes the Holy Father’s belief in the need for religious bodies to stress the goal for peace which lies at the heart of all religions. It “exemplifies what must happen all over the world.”
The gifts symbolize the path to peace in the deepest teachings of each group. They include:
A silver menorah with seven lights. It symbolizes the perennial validity of God’s covenant of peace. Silver is frequently used in the Eastern European Jewish tradition. The menorah recalls the seven branched lamp stand used in the temple in Jerusalem.
A small, finely crafted edition of the Qur’an, in green leather and gold leaf edging. The Qur’an is the revered word of God, proclaiming God’s message of peace. Green is the traditional Islamic color.
A metallic cube representing the Jain principles of non-violence and respect for a diversity of viewpoints as a way to peace through self-discipline and dialogue.
The sacred syllable Om on a brass incense burner. Om is the primordial sound of creation itself, by which God’s liberating peace is made known. Bronze or brass are widely used for Hindu liturgical ornaments. Incense sticks are used in ritual worship among Hindu believers.
A bronze bell cast in Korea. In various Buddhist cultures, the sound of the bell demarcates the times of meditation, which leads to inner peace and enlightenment.
Presenters of the gifts include:
David J. Michaels, director of Intercommunal Affairs at B'nai B'rith International, the oldest Jewish humanitarian, advocacy and social action organization. A graduate of Yeshiva University, he trained at the Foreign Ministry of Germany, the Embassy of Israel in Washington, Ha'aretz - International Herald Tribune, the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, the United Nations, and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.
Saman Hussain, born in Pakistan and a graduate of the University of Virginia where she majored in religious studies and foreign affairs. Saman served as a leader of the Muslim Student Association and was a coordinator of the Unity Walk in memory of the victims of 9/11, organized by the InterFaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington.
Aditya Vora, a Jain young adult studying at Haverford College in Pennsylvania. He has been active since high school in the Long Island Multi-Faith Forum, dialogues with Holocaust survivors in the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut region, and anti-prejudice, multi-cultural training programs on Long Island, NY. He received the "Student Human Rights Award" from the Smithtown, NY, Anti-Bias Task Force.
Masako Fukata, born in Tokyo, Japan, is an active youth leader of Rissho Kosei-kai, a socially engaged Buddhist organization headquartered in Tokyo with six million members world-wide. Inspired by Pope John Paul II’s hosting of the global inter-religious assembly of the World Conference of Religions for Peace at the Vatican in 1994, Ms. Masako served an internship in the Religions for Peace International Secretariat in New York in 2003. She is a member of the newly developing North American Regional Multi-Religious Youth Network.
Ravi Gupta, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Religion at Centre College, Kentucky. With a doctorate in Religion from University of Oxford, he is the author of The Caitanya Vaisnava Vedanta of Jiva Gosvami: When Knowledge Meets Devotion. He participated in a recent USCCB-Hindu consultation and is committed to pursuing interreligious dialogue in both his professional and personal capacities.
USCCB - (Office of Media Relations) - Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Jain, Hindu Leaders To Meet With Pope Benedict XVI
Please tell me that Saint Patrick or Saint Benedict or Saint Boniface or Saint Francis of Assisi or Saint Francis Xavier would have accepted such "gifts" or that Pope Saint Pius X, for example, would have permitted such an event to be placed on his schedule? Just a simple case of "diabolical disorientation"? Or is this simply an indication of the apostate nature of men who have lost the sensus Catholicus and who have no sense of the honor and glory of God, thereby projecting onto Him their own Modernist views as to how "tolerant" He is of false religions, views that must mean that every pope and numerous canonized saints, including scores of martyrs, prior to Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII in 1958 had it all wrong.
Remember, and this cannot be stressed enough, ladies and gentlemen, Joseph Ratzinger is on record throughout the course of his priesthood in support of the belief that dogmatic truth can be understood in different ways at different times. Anyone who dares to contest this is either a very stupid individual or one who is engaged in a deliberate act of deception in order to try to paint Ratzinger as something that he is not, a Catholic who is in good standing with God.
Once again, let's just present the facts for people to see so that the bluster of the intellectually dishonest, including some who used to make the exact same points about Ratzinger's view of dogmatic truth in their books and articles, is nothing other than the use of smoke and mirrors designed to divert attention from the absolute irreconcilability of Ratzinger's view of dogmatic truth and the Catholic Church's firm and consistent rejection of that Modernist view:
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.
(Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature (December 22, 2005.)
Hence, that meaning of the sacred dogmata is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be an abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.... If anyone says that it is possible that at some given time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmata propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has always understood and understands: let him be anathema. [Vatican Council, 1870.]
Hence it is quite impossible to maintain that they [dogmatic statements and papal pronouncements] absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion.
It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor, indeed, are they without forerunners in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our predecessor Pius IX wrote: "These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts." On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new. We find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: ''Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason"; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: ''The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth." Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and maintained. For the same Council continues: "Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals, and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries -- but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation." [Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.]
Anyone who believes that truth is "anchored" in one place for a time in accordance with the particular subjective conditions of a moment in history before it is "anchored" in another place at another time in accordance with the particular subjective conditions of that moment in history does not believe in the nature of God as He has revealed Himself to be, indeed, as even natural reason itself proves that He must be of His very nature. All of the headlines that will appear on some websites in the next week trying to prove that Ratzinger is a Catholic ("Pope believes in the Eucharist," "Pope believes in Calvary," "Pope believes in the Resurrection") will prove nothing. Nothing. Modernists mix truth with error, and the Catholic Church teaches us that even one drop of poison dropped into the well of the Faith by one who defects from her teachings in even one matter, no less many, causes them to fall from the Faith in its entirety no matter how many other, if not the preponderance, of truths of the Faith they profess to adhere:
The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).
The need of this divinely instituted means for the preservation of unity, about which we speak is urged by St. Paul in his epistle to the Ephesians. In this he first admonishes them to preserve with every care concord of minds: "Solicitous to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. iv., 3, et seq.). And as souls cannot be perfectly united in charity unless minds agree in faith, he wishes all to hold the same faith: "One Lord, one faith," and this so perfectly one as to prevent all danger of error: "that henceforth we be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive" (Eph. iv., 14): and this he teaches is to be observed, not for a time only - "but until we all meet in the unity of faith...unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ" (13). But, in what has Christ placed the primary principle, and the means of preserving this unity? In that - "He gave some Apostles - and other some pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ" (11-12). (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)
This will appear more clearly to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In their writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate doctrines which are contrary one to the other, so that one would be disposed to regard their attitude as double and doubtful. But this is done deliberately and advisedly, and the reason of it is to be found in their opinion as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Thus in their books one finds some things which might well be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist. When they write history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they are dealing with history they take no account of the Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechize the people, they cite them respectfully. In the same way they draw their distinctions between exegesis which is theological and pastoral and exegesis which is scientific and historical. So, too, when they treat of philosophy, history, and criticism, acting on the principle that science in no way depends upon faith, they feel no especial horror in treading in the footsteps of Luther and are wont to display a manifold contempt for Catholic doctrines, for the Holy Fathers, for the Ecumenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical magisterium; and should they be taken to task for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty. Lastly, maintaining the theory that faith must be subject to science, they continuously and openly rebuke the Church on the ground that she resolutely refuses to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy; while they, on their side, having for this purpose blotted out the old theology, endeavor to introduce a new theology which shall support the aberrations of philosophers. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)
We have been subjected to an incredible spectacle of positivism and spin-doctoring in the past six to eight weeks as various writers have attempted to justify and to defend Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's "revision" of the Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews. Efforts have been made by some to assert that Walter "Cardinal" Kasper's letter to Rabbi David Rosen, which spoke of the new prayer as expressing an "eschatological" or "end-times" hope for the salvation of "Israel" once all of the Gentiles had "entered the Church," did not reflect the mind of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict even though Kasper's February 13, 2008, letter came some six days after he had made the exact same remarks on Vatican Radio and came two days before "Archbishop" Gianfranco Ravasi made similar points in an article that was published in L'Osservatore Romano on February 15, 2008.
Ah, some told us, the matter was "closed" when a "note" appeared in La Civilta Cattolica, the official journal of the conciliar Jesuits in the City of Rome, Italy, discussing the new prayer's "true meaning" (a typical and predictable conciliarist exercise, that is, clarification after clarification after clarification must be issued to explain the meaning of some conciliarist document or prayer or set of instructions). None other than one of Joseph Ratzinger's co-conspirators in the deconstruction and the misrepresentation of the Third Secret of Fatima, Tarcisio "Cardinal" Bertone, the conciliar Vatican's Secretary of State, was said to guarantee the "orthodoxy" of some upcoming clarification that would "settle" the matter that had upset so many adherents of the Talmud once and for all.
The "note" in La Civilta Cattolica was NOT what Bertone had in mind, however. The defenders of all things Benedict had it wrong once again. This act of utter apostasy is what Bertone had in mind:
By Philip Pullella
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict has approved a conciliatory statement for Jews upset by a Good Friday prayer that many saw as a call for their conversion, Catholic and Jewish sources said on Monday.
The statement, likely to take the form of a letter from Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone to the chief rabbi of Israel, is expected to be released soon but perhaps not in time for this Good Friday on March 21.
Bertone is second only to the Pope in the Vatican hierarchy, meaning the clarification is coming from the highest levels, as had been requested by the Jews, the sources said.
The Vatican last month revised a contested Latin prayer used by a traditionalist minority on Good Friday, the day marking Jesus Christ's crucifixion, removing a reference to Jewish "blindness" over Christ and deleting a phrase asking God to "remove the veil from their hearts".
Jews criticized the new version because it still says they should recognize Jesus Christ as the savior of all men. It asks that "all Israel may be saved" and Jews say it keeps an underlying call to conversion that they had wanted removed.
But Cardinal Bertone will say in the letter that the new prayer is not a call for conversion or proselytism and that there was no turning back on dialogue between the two religions.
The letter is expected to stress the concept that all salvation, including that of Israel, is in God's hands and that the prayer is not a call for missionary activity.
Jewish groups complained last year when the Pope issued a decree allowing wider use of the old-style Latin Mass and a missal, or prayer book, that was phased out after the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, which met from 1962 to 1965.
They protested against the re-introduction of the old prayer for conversion of the Jews and asked the Pope to change it.
Jewish organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the American Jewish Committee and the International Jewish Committee on Inter-religious Consultations criticized the new version of the Good Friday prayer.
According to sources familiar with drafts of the letter, it will say that the Vatican still takes as its reference point the landmark 1965 declaration Nostra Aetate (In our time).
This repudiated the concept of collective Jewish guilt for the killing of Christ and urged dialogue with Jews.
Rabbis around the world had asked the Vatican to clarify the new prayer. Italy's Jewish community was particularly tough, saying the new prayer was a serious step backward that posed a fundamental obstacle to continued Catholic-Jewish relations.
Sources on both sides said they hoped Bertone's letter to the chief rabbi would end the controversy.
They said it would say that the Church had no intention of returning to what one source called "the language of contempt" it had used in the past and wanted to stress mutual respect.
The prayer will be heard only by a tiny minority of Catholics who attend services on Good Friday that are held in Latin rather than in their local languages as usual.
Under what shell will defenders of all things Benedict attempt to hide the pea of this apostasy? The "pope" just had to do this? The "pope" was forced into doing this? The "pope" is being given bad advice by bad men who want to make him look bad just a week before the putative lifting of the "excommunications" that were imposed by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II on the four bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X who were consecrated by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on June 30, 1988?
For the time being, I am sure, thunderous voices will say that any comment upon this matter right now is a veritable "rush to judgment," an exercise in "rash judgment." We can't say anything until the contents of the letter are released. That's what we will be told by those who must dig themselves deeper and deeper into a hole of their own making as their credibility begins to wear thin even with some of the most ardent supporters of the gigantic trap that is represented by Summorum Pontificum. We might even be told that the Reuters news agency has a track record that is on par of reliability with that of Richard Owen of the London Times online, that is, that we are not to believe the press reports, which are prone to get so many facts wrong before an event actually takes place.
It is the actions of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and his fellow conciliarists in the Vatican themselves in the past eight months since it was announced that the already-revised Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews contained in the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that was promulgated by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII in 1961 (and revised with the insertion of the name of Saint Joseph into the Roman Canon in 1962) would be revised in order to placate the concerns of various Talmudic leaders about the prayer. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI believes himself to be the Vicar of Christ. So do most of the people on this planet, most unfortunately. Joseph Ratzinger believes, therefore, that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the very Second Person of the Blessed Trinity made Man in His Most Blessed Mother's Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of God the Holy Ghost at the Annunciation, would Himself revise a prayer so as to appease the practitioners of the Talmudic version of a dead religion whose leaders in His own day He denounced in the most stark terms:
But woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men, for you yourselves do not enter in; and those that are going in, you suffer not to enter. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites: because you devour the houses of widows, praying long prayers. For this you shall receive the greater judgment. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, you make him the child of hell twofold more than yourselves.
Woe to you blind guides, that say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but he that shall swear by the gold of the temple, is a debtor. Ye foolish and blind; for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? And whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gift that is upon it, is a debtor. Ye blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? He therefore that sweareth by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things that are upon it:
And whosoever shall swear by temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth in it: And he that sweareth by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you tithe mint, and anise, and cummin, and have left the weightier things of the law; judgment, and mercy, and faith. These things you ought to have done, and not to leave those undone. Blind guides, who strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you make clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but within you are full of rapine and uncleanness.
Thou blind Pharisee, first make clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, that the outside may become clean. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men's bones, and of all filthiness. So you also outwardly indeed appear to men just; but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; that build the sepulchres of the prophets, and adorn the monuments of the just, And say: If we had been in the days of our Fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
Wherefore you are witnesses against yourselves, that you are the sons of them that killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. You serpents, generation of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of hell? Therefore behold I send to you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them you will put to death and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city: That upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar.
Amen I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation. Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered together thy children, as the hen doth gather her chickens under her wings, and thou wouldest not? Behold, you house shall be left to you, desolate. For I say to you, you shall not see me henceforth till you say: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. (Matthew 23: 13-39.)
Did Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Who is God Himself in the Flesh, have it wrong? Would He, the Divine Redeemer and the Invisible Head of His true Church on earth that He Himself founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope, have authorized one of the Apostles to write a letter to "apologize" to Caiphas for His having condemned the Pharisees as a brood of vipers? Would He accord the Chief Rabbi of Israel any recognition at all other than that of a man who has an immortal soul that He has redeemed by the very shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and whose conversion He desires with every fabric of His Most Sacred Heart? Or would not Our Lord speak to the Chief Rabbi of Israel in exactly the same terms of one of His true popes, Pope Saint Pius X, did when speaking to the founder of international Zionism, Theodore Herzl, on January 25, 1904?
HERZL: I thank Your Holiness for the favor of granting me this audience. [I begged him to excuse my miserable Italian, but he said:
POPE: No, Signor Commander, you speak very well.
HERZL: [He is an honest, rough-hewn village priest, to whom Christianity has remained a living thing even in the Vatican. I briefly laid my request before him. But annoyed perhaps by my refusal to kiss his hand, he answered in a stern categorical manner.
POPE: We are unable to favor this movement [of Zionism]. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem—but we could never sanction it. The ground of Jerusalem, if it were not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church I cannot answer you otherwise. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people.
HERZL: [The conflict between Rome and Jerusalem, represented by the one and the other of us, was once again under way. At the outset I tried to be conciliatory. I said my little piece. . . . It didn’t greatly impress him. Jerusalem was not to be placed in Jewish hands.] And its present status, Holy Father?
POPE: I know, it is disagreeable to see the Turks in possession of our Holy Places. We simply have to put up with it. But to sanction the Jewish wish to occupy these sites, that we cannot do.
HERZL: [I said that we based our movement solely on the sufferings of the Jews, and wished to put aside all religious issues].
POPE: Yes, but we, but I as the head of the Catholic Church, cannot do this. One of two things will likely happen. Either the Jews will retain their ancient faith and continue to await the Messiah whom we believe has already appeared—in which case they are denying the divinity of Jesus and we cannot assist them. Or else they will go there with no religion whatever, and then we can have nothing at all to do with them. The Jewish faith was the foundation of our own, but it has been superceded by the teachings of Christ, and we cannot admit that it still enjoys any validity. The Jews who should have been the first to acknowledge Jesus Christ have not done so to this day.
HERZL: [It was on the tip of my tongue to remark, “It happens in every family: no one believes in his own relative.” But, instead, I said:] Terror and persecution were not precisely the best means for converting the Jews. [His reply had an element of grandeur in its simplicity:]
POPE: Our Lord came without power. He came in peace. He persecuted no one. He was abandoned even by his apostles. It was only later that he attained stature. It took three centuries for the Church to evolve. The Jews therefore had plenty of time in which to accept his divinity without duress or pressure. But they chose not to do so, and they have not done it yet.
HERZL: But, Holy Father, the Jews are in a terrible plight. I do not know if Your Holiness is aware of the full extent of their tragedy. We need a land for these harried people.
POPE: Must it be Jerusalem?
HERZL: We are not asking for Jerusalem, but for Palestine—for only the secular land.
POPE: We cannot be in favor of it.
[Editor Lowenthal interjects here] Here unrelenting replacement theology is plainly upheld as the norm of the Roman Catholic Church. Further, this confession, along with the whole tone of the Pope in his meeting with Herzl, indicates the perpetuation of a doctrinal emphasis that has resulted in centuries of degrading behavior toward the Jews. However, this response has the “grandeur” of total avoidance of that which Herzl had intimated, namely that the abusive reputation of Roman Catholicism toward the Jews was unlikely to foster conversion. Further, if, “It took three centuries for the Church to evolve,” it was that very same period of time that it took for the Church to consolidate and launch its thrust of anti-Semitism through the following centuries.
HERZL: Does Your Holiness know the situation of the Jews?
POPE: Yes, from my days in Mantua, where there are Jews. I have always been in friendly relations with Jews. Only the other evening two Jews were here to see me. There are other bonds than those of religion: social intercourse, for example, and philanthropy. Such bonds we do not refuse to maintain with the Jews. Indeed we also pray for them, that their spirit see the light. This very day the Church is celebrating the feast of an unbeliever who became converted in a miraculous manner—on the road to Damascus. And so if you come to Palestine and settle your people there, we will be ready with churches and priests to baptize all of you.
"The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people." The One World Ecumenical Church that is the counterfeit church of conciliarism does indeed recognize the nonexistent "authority" of the leaders of a false religion, which belongs of its very nature to the devil himself, blaspheming God and spitting on the concern that true popes and countless missionaries, starting with Saint Peter the other Eleven Apostles on the first Pentecost Sunday, to seek the conversion of Jews, both those of the blood of Abraham and those who are the adherents of the Talmud by means of being descended from the Khazar converts to this egregiously blasphemous document at the end of the First Millennium. It is an act of paramount anti-Semitism to refrain from seeking the conversion of those steeped in the blindness of Talmudic Judaism. It is an act of supreme disloyalty to Christ the King to render unto a leader of a false religion sworn to oppose Him and His Royal Rights any recognition of legitimacy, no less obeisance and obsequiousness.
All of this makes the traitor Judas Iscariot seem admirable. Judas Iscariot at least recognized that he had done wrong, although he lost his salvation by despairing of the possibility of his being forgiven by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and his band of conciliar henchmen--and there is no other word to describe these insidious enemies of God and of the souls for whom He offered Himself up on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday--do not recognize that they do wrong. Indeed, they believe that their cause, the cause of inter-religious dialogue, is of God. It is not. It is of the devil himself. They are unrepentant and unbent in their desire to persist in this apostasy, which keeps millions of souls out of the Church as it convinces Catholics and non-Catholics alike that leaders of false religions are on the same level of equality with the Vicar of Christ (although, truth be told, the false pope IS on he same level of equality with the leaders of false religions!), until the point of their dying breaths.
Although we are are to have remorse for our sins throughout our lives as we seek to do penance for them as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, we are called to do so in a particular way during Holy Week, the very week in which our salvation was wrought for us on the wood of the Holy Cross. We have played the role of Judas Iscariot in betraying Our Lord. We have played the role of Saint Peter in denying Our Lord before men. We must never seek to beg Our Lady to send us the graces that flow through her loving hands so that we will be converted on a daily basis away from our sins, thus enabling us to be better able to pray with greater purity of intention as we seek the conversion of all others, including those who belong to Talmudic Judaism.
Father Frederick Faber, writing in The Precious Blood, put the matter this way in 1860:
God condescends to put himself before us effecting Creation by a word. He spoke, and it was done. Let light be, and light was. Thus Creation is effected by the most simple of all agencies, namely, by a single means, and that means, not a work, but a mere word. The Precious Blood, on the other hand, effects its creations in Conversion by a multiplicity of means, of means which are often repeated, often varied, often intensified, often newly invented for fresh cases, and often quite peculiar to the individual case. There is nothing in the world which the Precious Blood cannot make a means of grace. Even sin, though it cannot be a means of grace, can be constrained to the ministries of grace, just as Satan is made the reluctant bondsman of the elect, and is forced to jewel their crowns with the very temptations he had devised for their destruction. Nevertheless in this respect also Conversion is like Creation. It is like in its choice of means, although not like in its simplicity. For the Precious Blood also chooses words for its instruments, as if in honor of that Eternal Word whose human life it is. The Sacraments are its ordinary modes of action, as we shall see later on; and words are the forms of the Sacraments, without which their peculiar miracles of grace cannot be wrought. Divine words are the chosen instruments of production in the supernatural as well as in the natural world.
It is one of the glories of the act of Creation, that there is no semblance of effort about it. It is the free act of God, but it is hardly an act in the sense in which we commonly use the word. It is an act in a much higher sense, a simpler and yet a more efficacious sense. It is an act without effort, without succession, without processes. It is an act such as befits the perfections of the Most High. His power did not rise up, as it were, to do it, nor his wisdom deliberate about it, nor his love grow to it. Nothing went out of him to the act, nor was the tranquility of his life quickened by it. Conversion, on the contrary, has all the look of effort about it. Nay, effort is not the word: I should rather have said agony. The Precious Blood working its way out of our Blessed Lord's Body in the sweat of Gethsemane, the slow, painful oozings from the Crown of thorns, the rude violence of the sprinkling at the Scourging, the distillation of the Blood along the streets of Jerusalem and up the slop of Calvary, the soaking of his clinging raiment, the four wells dug by the cruel nails ebbing and flowing with the pulses of his feeble life, the violation of the silent sanctuary of his Dead Heart, to seek for the few drops of that precious treasure that might be left--all these are parts of our effort of Conversion. Neither is there less look of effort in the Conversion of each single soul; more with some, and less with others. In most instances the Precious Blood seems to return to the charge again and again. Here it fails, there it succeeds. Now its success is hardly perceptible, not it is manifest, striking and decisive. The Precious Blood tries to convert every one, just as it was shed for every one. Multitudes remain unconverted, and are never won back to the kingdom of God. With them the battle has gone against grace. Even in defeat the Precious Blood triumphs. It gains glory for God; bit it is in ways which in this life we cannot put ourselves into a position to understand. It can boast also of decisive victories, of great strokes of grace, of hearts carried by storm, of saints made at once out of one heroic deed. But these are not the common cases. With most hearts it strives, and pleads, and toils; then it seems to intermit its labors, as if it were fatigued; it retires from the heart as if in despair. Once more it returns to its task, and occupies itself with incredible patience in minutest details, often working under ground and in circuitous ways. Not seldom it retires again, as if now completely baffled; and finally, when least expected, it leaps upon its prey from afar, and triumphs as much by the suddenness, as by the impetuosity of the onslaught.
Look at that soul, almost the richest booty it ever won in war, the soul of St. Paul. What long years there were of religious antecedents, what a blind generosity of a misdirected zeal, what a fidelity to unhelpful ordinances, what a preparation for humility in the cruel persecution of the faithful, what a prelude to apostolic fervor in that furious partisanship of the conscientious pharisee, what an insensible drawing nigh to the Gospel through the very perfection of his Judaism! Then follow St. Stephen's prayers, and thins are coming to the best with Saul when they are at their very worst. Yet Stephen's prayers are not so much attacking him as circumventing him. Then the heavens open at noonday, and the glorified Redeemer overwhelms him with sudden light, and blinds him, and flings him to the ground; and the blood of Stephen, which had cried aloud to the Blood of Jesus, is sweetly avenged by the heart of Paul being cleansed by that atoning Blood, and sent out unto all nations to be the especial preacher of that Blood which had so glorified itself in his Conversion. Yet while there is such a seeming contrast between Creation and Conversion in this matter of effort, there is also a close comparison between them. There is in reality no effort in the operation of the Precious Blood. It only needed to let itself be shed. It only needs not to let itself be outpoured. Its touch is health, life, resurrection, immortality, and glory. Its sole touch is its sole work. It never touches but it changes. It needs but to touch once in order to make its spiritual change complete. If it seems to add, to repeat, to re-touch, to re-deepen, to broaden, to improve on itself, all that comes from another part of its character. It is no sign of want of power, no necessary expenditure of artistic labor, no demand of experience, no consequence of more mature reflection. (Father Frederick Faber, The Precious Blood, published originally in England in 1860, republished by TAN Books and Publishers, pp. 96-98.)
Have the conciliarists spoken thus to the adherents of any false religion, including Talmudic Judaism? Isn't the fact that they do not speak thus an important and quite public manifestation of the apostate nature of a false religion named conciliarism, which seeks to appease the ancient enemies of the Faith while at the same time reaffirming them in adherence to a false religion unto the point of their very deaths?
The Catholic Church cannot be responsible for the apostasies of the present moment. The Catholic Church cannot give us evil liturgies or a rite of exorcism that even the chief exorcist of the City of Rome, Father Gabriel Amorth, has said is "useless" against the devil. It took me long enough to realize this fact.
Having realized it does not make me one whit better than those who do not see it as of yet and who are trying mightily to resist the truth of our situation, going to great lengths to indemnify apostates such as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI at almost every turn. As I noted on many other occasions recently, it is most regrettable to find oneself in opposition to former friends and colleagues. Once one is led to discover the truth, however, it must be embraced and penances must be accepted to make reparation for resisting it--and encouraging others to resist its acceptance--over the years, which is what I am trying to do at the present time (in addition to all of the other sins for which I hope to live long enough to make satisfaction for before I am called to the moment of my Particular Judgment). And the truth could not be more plain: those who seek to "apologize" to the ancient enemies of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ prove themselves to be His mortal enemies, prove themselves to have defected from the Faith and lost any claim whatsoever of legitimately holding and exercising any ecclesiastical office within the Catholic Church.
We must take refuge in the Catholic catacombs where no concessions whatsoever are made to conciliarism or to the nonexistent legitimacy of its false shepherds, placing our trust in the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, praying as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit.
This is the week in which our salvation was wrought for us. We must prove ourselves once again to be on the right side of the Cross, standing there with Our Lady and Saint John the Evangelist and Saint Mary Magdalene--and all of the angels and saints, at the daily offering of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition offered by true bishops and true priests who are una cum the Chief Priest and Victim of every Mass and una cum His Catholic Church, not una cum Benedict the Apostate and the counterfeit church of conciliarism that is so eager to please the ancient enemies of Christ the King and Mary our Immaculate Queen.
Our Lady of Sorrows, pray for us!
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.