On the Terms of the Enemies of Christ the King
by Thomas A. Droleskey
Efforts on the part of the ancient enemies of the Christ the King, the adherents of the Talmud and their enablers, to thwart the "reconciliation" between the conciliar revolutionaries and the Society of Saint Pius X have begun.
Reprising the the efforts made by Talmudists and their conciliar enablers following the broadcast interview with Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of Saint Pius that aired on Swedish television on Wednesday, January 21, 2009, in which His Excellency answered a question about his views of the nature and extent of the crimes committed by agents of the Third Reich against Jews in Germany and elsewhere in Europe (see Those Who Deny The Holocaust, Disciples of Caiphas, Under The Bus, Nothing New Under the Conciliar Sun, Story Time in Econe, Yes, Sir, Master Scribe and No Crime Is Worse Than Deicide) efforts that seemed to have been timed to precede Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict's January 24, 2009, lifting of the "excommunications" imposed by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II upon the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on June 29, 1988, Talmudic enablers have now begun recycling charges of anti-Semitism against the Society of Saint Pius X that were made thirty-nine months ago now. An Italian journalist by the name of Giulio Meotti has even gone so far as to claim that the currently reigning false "pontiff" risks taking what most think is the Catholic Church into a "new era" of anti-Semitism:
The Catholic splinter group Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) sent a letter of reconciliation to the Vatican, which Der Spiegel magazine defined as “the greatest gift to the papacy of Benedict XVI.” Pope Joseph Ratzinger has long wanted to heal the schism with the Society and bring the followers of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre back into the Church.
Richard Williamson, one of four Society bishops whose excommunications the Pope revoked, made global headlines by publicly denying the Holocaust.
Sources now say that an agreement between the Catholic Church and the Society is “imminent” and they are closer to reconciliation.
The National Catholic Register put it this way: “Get ready for SSPX Pandemonium.”
Yet hatred for Israel and the Jews permeates not only Williamson’s fringe, but the entire Catholic Society.
The Vatican’s unity with Lefebvre’s group would be a renovation of the “Adversus Judeaos” teachings that spurred pogroms, burnings at the stake, the Inquisition and the gas chambers. It’s the same medieval European hatred of the people of Israel which was so intense that all calamities were attributed to the Jews’ malfeasance.
The Italian branch of the Society just chose a new head, Pierpaolo Petrucci, whose positions on the Jews are the exact copy of Williamson's. Petrucci published an essay on the website of the Society, stating: “About the Jews, Joseph Ratzinger calls them ‘Fathers in faith’. What does it mean? Supporting Israel’s policy despite the Palestinian question? Supporting the Jewish religion? If that’s the case, how can the Church approve a false religion which rejects Jesus Christ?”
Petrucci calls the Jews “rejecters of Christ” and claims that “the Church always condemned Judaism as a false religion, praying for the conversion (of the Jews,) so that they will reach salvation, seriously compromised by their superstitions.”
The Society’s bulletin, La Tradizione Cattolica, calls Judaism “a false cult” and spreads delusional material on “the Jew Karl Marx” and “the Jews sleeping in the shadow of death.”
The Society’s US website calls the Jews “enemy of man, whose secret weapon is the leaven of the Pharisees which is hypocrisy.”
The South African site claims that “Jews have come closer and closer to fulfilling their substitute-Messianic drive towards world dominion.”
The Belgian site accuses Jews of “still believing they are the chosen people” while “awaiting world domination.”
This is even worse than the lunatic statements of Williamson denying the existence of Auschwitz.
It’s the cornerstone of the displacement Christian myth, which rings a genocidal note.
Franz Schmidberger, the right-hand man of superior Bishop Bernard Fellay, asked for the Jews’ conversion and called them “complicit in deicide.”
Another bishop pardoned by the Pope, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, said that “the Jews are the most active artisans for the coming of Antichrist.”
If the Vatican welcomes back the Society, Jewish rabbis should halt their dialogue with the Church and Israeli officials should declare the Society’s leaders “personae non grata.” Any Jewish-Christian rapprochement would be not only futile, but extremely dangerous.
It is incumbent upon Pope Benedict to atone for what Christianity has done to the Jewish people by recognizing the unique role of the Jews in this world and the existence of a restored Israel as the proof that the Jewish people is not annihilated, assimilated and withering away.
Otherwise, Christian anti-Semitism will remain an inextinguishable fire and Catholicism will be embracing, again, a proto-Holocaust theology. (Vatican embracing anti-Semitism.)
Giulio Meotti, whoever he is, has simply recycled all of the old, baseless charges of "anti-Semitism" against the Society of Saint Pius X that were thrown out in January and February of 2009. Talmudists made these charge at that time as they dragged out these exact, perfectly defensible quotations. This provided two conciliar "cardinals," Roger Mahony, then the conciliar "archbishop" of Los Angeles, California, and Sean O'Malley, the conciliar "archbishop" of Boston, Massachusetts, opportunities to posture and preen in front of the cameras at events staged with Talmudists to denounce Bishop Williamson in particular and "anti-Semitism" in general.
The symbiotic relationship that exists between many pro-abortion, pro-perversity leaders of the "reformed" branch of the false religion of Talmudic Judaism and "ultra-progressive" revolutionaries in the counterfeit church of conciliarism serves both sides very well.
"Ultra-progressive" revolutionaries in the conciliar church are not quite as "inclusive" as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. That is, the "ultra-progressives" believe that any "reconciliation" of the Society of Saint Pius X with what they believe to be the Catholic Church represents a repudiation of the doctrinal and liturgical revolutions to which they have devoted such zeal in promoting and institutionalizing.
As noted just a few days ago in "Joe" Hasn't Changed,
Fellas, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has every intention of proceeding forth with his revolution. He is simply doing so at a more deliberate and methodical pace than that desired by the "ultra-progressives." He is willing, it appears, to accept the Society of Saint Pius X as a full member of his false church even though he might have to tolerate a disparity of views for a period of time after the official "reconciliation," if one is to occur (which I still believe will be the case), has been effected.
Ratzinger/Benedict believes that the history of such "reconciliations" with individual traditionally-minded Catholics after Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II issued the first "indult" for the offering of the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition under very strict conditions (Quattuor abhinc annos, October 3, 1984, which is referenced in As the Conciliar Fowler Lays More Snares) and as a result of Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, July 2, 1988, which was issued by Wojtyla/John Paul II three days after Archbishop Lefebvre's episcopal consecrations in Econe, Switzerland, that permitted twelve priests and around twenty seminarians to become full-fledged members of the conciliar church and that served as the entrance door into that same false church for the Society of Saint John Mary Vianney in Campos, Brazil, shows "promise" for the possibility of "pacifying spirits" and "breaking down" "one-sided opinions." This is one of the reasons he issues Summorum Pontificum on July 7, 2009. He went to great lengths at that time to tell us precisely what he was doing:
It is true that there have been exaggerations and at times social
aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the
ancient Latin liturgical tradition. Your charity and pastoral prudence
will be an incentive and guide for improving these. For that matter, the
two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new
Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the
old Missal. The "Ecclesia Dei" Commission, in contact with various
bodies devoted to the "usus antiquior," will study the practical
possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to
the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than
has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to
the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can
unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being
celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical
directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the
theological depth of this Missal.
I now come to the positive
reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating
that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in
the heart of the Church. Looking back over the past, to the divisions
which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one
continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions
were coming about, not enough was done by the Church's leaders to
maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that
omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for
the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the
past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to unable
for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to
attain it anew. I think of a sentence in the Second Letter to the
Corinthians, where Paul writes: "Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians;
our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted
in your own affections. In return … widen your hearts also!" (2
Corinthians 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another context,
but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this
subject. Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything
that the faith itself allows. (Explanatory Letter on "Summorum Pontificum".)
Ratzinger/Benedict repeated this intention quite explicitly in France in September of 2008 (see the pertinent passage in thirty-seven months ago when he wrote yet another "explanatory letter" to his "bishops" after "lifting" the "excommunications" of the four Society of Saint Pius X bishops, a letter that also sought to exculpate himself about being "ignorant" of Bishop Williamson's well-known position concerning the nature and extent of the crimes of the Third Reich:
Leading men and women to God, to the God Who speaks
in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church
and of the Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical
consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all
believers. Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls
into question the credibility of their talk of God. Hence the
effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith -
ecumenism - is part of the supreme priority. Added to this is the need
for all those who believe in God to join in seeking peace, to attempt to
draw closer to one another, and to journey together, even with their
differing images of God, towards the source of Light - this is
inter-religious dialogue. Whoever proclaims that God is Love
'to the end' has to bear witness to love: in loving devotion to the
suffering, in the rejection of hatred and enmity - this is the social
dimension of the Christian faith, of which I spoke in the Encyclical
'Deus caritas est'.
"So if the arduous task of working for faith, hope
and love in the world is presently (and, in various ways, always) the
Church's real priority, then part of this is also made up of acts of
reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture of
extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the
opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must
accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to
meet half-way the brother who 'has something against you' and to seek
reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall
forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents - to the
extent possible - in the great currents shaping social life, and thus
avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome
changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and
broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke
down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole.
Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests,
215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level
institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands
of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the
Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed
their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have
chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy
elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim
Him and, with Him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as
representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation
and unity? What would then become of them?
"Certainly, for some time now, and once again on
this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that
community many unpleasant things - arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc.
Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of
touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of
heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous
in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise
made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable
of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader
vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things
have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression
that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance
may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone
dare to approach them - in this case the Pope - he too loses any right
to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or
restraint. (LETTER ON REMISSION OF EXCOMMUNICATION LEFEBVRE BISHOP)
"Ultra-progressives," therefore, have nothing at all to fear from a possible "reconciliation" of the Society of Saint Pius X with their false church. Ratzinger/Benedict may not share all of their goals. However, he shares enough of what could be called an "irreducible minima" of their goals to continue along the "evolutionary" path of what he thinks is the Catholic Church's "reconciliation" with Modernity. The current false "pontiff" believes that giving the bishops and priests of the Society of Saint Pius X a "room" in what Bishop Bernard Fellay once called the "conciliar zoo" will "pacify spirits" over the course of time, especially about the laity who assist at Holy Mass at chapels administered by the Society, to such an extent that the same kind of "neutralization" of "one-sided positions" and "arrogance and presumptuousness" can occur as has happened with the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter and Saint John Mary Vianney, which became a full-fledged "partner" in the counterfeit church of conciliarism on January 18, 2002, just over ten years ago now.
Thus it is that this writer has his mouth agape over the contention made by some Talmudists and their enablers, such as Giulio Meotti, that what they think is the Catholic Church is "returning" to what they view as its "anti-Semitic" past by attempting to chart a possible path of "reconciliation" with the Society of Saint Pius X as it is Ratzinger/Benedict's hope that such a "reconciliation" will result in the "conversion" of the future generations of priests and laity in the Society to a full and complete acceptance of the conciliar church's apostate views concerning the Jews that have been expressed repeatedly in the past fifty years (for a review of the exploitation of the term "anti-Semitic" to silence Catholics from expressing anything resembling the immutable, perennial teaching of Holy Mother Church concerning Judaism, see Chopped Liver No More). Indeed, the false "popes" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism and many of their "bishops" and theologians and priests/presbyters have fallen all over themselves to accommodate the ancient enemies of Christ the King, which is why it is laughable that the Talmudists demand what is, in effect, an immediate repudiation by the leaders of the Society of Saint Pius X of its "anti-Semitic" statements, which are nothing of the sort as they represent simple Catholic truth, as Ratzinger/Benedict believes that a "purification of memory" will occur on its own in the natural course of events as those in the Society become comfortable with living without being labeled as "schismatics" and "disloyal" by their friends and relatives who are attached to the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service.
Mr. Meotti, under what rock have you been living? How old are you anyway? Come on, kid, the conciliarists have proved over and over again that they are more than willing to appease adherents of the Talmud, a false religion that is not, quite incidentally, the same as the once true religion that was superseded by the New and Eternal Testament that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ instituted at the Last Supper on Maundy Thursday and ratified by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday.
Have a little gander at just some of the ways in which this appeasement of the contemporary enemies of Christ the King in the synagogue has been expressed by the agents of the counterfeit church of conciliarism:
If Jews one day come (as Paul hopes) to a more positive judgment of Jesus, this must occur through an inner process, as the end of a search of their own (something that in part is occurring). We Christians cannot be the ones who seek to convert them. We have lost the right to do so by the way in which this was done in the past. First the wounds must be healed through dialogue and reconciliation. (Zenit, September 30, 2005.)
The reformulated text no longer speaks about the conversion of the Jews as some Jewish critics wrongly affirm. The text is a prayer inspired by Saint Paul's letter to the Romans, chapter 11, which is the very text that speaks also of the unbroken covenant. It takes up Paul's eschatological hope that in the end of time all Israel will be saved. As a prayer the text lays all in the hands of God and not in ours. It says nothing about the how and when. Therefore there is nothing about missionary activities by which we may take Israel's salvation in our hands.
I cannot see why this prayer should present any reason to interrupt our dialogue. On the contrary, it is an opportunity and a challenge to continue the dialogue on what we have in common and what differentiates us in our Messianic hope.
I am happy that after some perplexities we now hear more and more voices from the Jewish world seeing things in a realistic way, and I do hope that this letter can be a contribution to overcome the misunderstandings and grievances. (Cardinal Kasper's Letter to Rabbi Rosen)
We repeat: this is the Christian vision, and it is the hope of the Church that prays. It is not a programmatic proposal of theoretical adherence, nor is it a missionary strategy of conversion. It is the attitude characteristic of the prayerful invocation according to which one hopes also for the persons considered near to oneself, those dear and important, a reality that one maintains is precious and salvific. An important exponent of French culture in the 20th century, Julien Green, wrote that "it is always beautiful and legitimate to wish for the other what is for you a good or a joy: if you think you are offering a true gift, do not hold back your hand." Of course, this must always take place in respect for freedom and for the different paths that the other adopts. But it is an expression of affection to wish for your brother what you consider a horizon of light and life. ("Archbishop" Gianfranco Ravasi, A Bishop and a Rabbi Defend the Prayer for the Salvation of the Jews.)
The postconciliar Vatican has not been altogether straightforward regarding the Jews' need for conversion. either. The fashionable doctrine these days--again, contrary to all prior papal teaching--is the claim that the Old Covenant that God established with the Jews, far from having been superseded by the New Covenant of Christ and the Church, is in fact still in effect. Thus we have John Paul II telling a Jewish audience: "The first dimension of this dialogue, that is, the meeting between the people of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God, and that of the New Covenant , is at the same time a dialogue within our Church, that is to say, between the first and second part of her Bible." "Jews and Christians," he went on to say, "as children of Abraham, are called to be a blessing to the world" by "committing themselves together for peace and justice among all men and peoples." Such statements seem impossible to reconcile with the Church's divine commandment to convert the Jews for the salvation of their souls. In fact, Cardinal Kasper, whom the Pope has also made the President of the Pontifical Council for Religious Relations with the Jews, has repudiated the conversion of Jews as explicitly as he has repudiated the return of the Protestant dissidents to the one true Church:
[T]he old theory of substitution is gone since the Second Vatican Council. for us Christians today the covenant with the Jewish people is a living heritage, a living reality.... Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism, i.e., the faithful response of the Jewish people to God's irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises.... Thus mission, in this strict sense, cannot be used with regard to Jews, who believe in the true and one God. Therefore--and this is characteristic--there does not exist any Catholic missionary organization for Jews. There is dialogue with Jews; no mission in this proper sense of the word towards them. (Address at 17th meeting of the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee, New York, May 1, 2001, quoted in Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Great Facade. Remnant Press, 2002, pp. 203-204.)
Once again, Kasper received no correction from the Pope or any Vatican dicastery [Thomas A. Droleskey interjection here: and neither has Kasper received any correction from Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI for saying similar things repeatedly in the course of the past three and one-half years!]. On the contrary, he has received only a promotion to his current position of authority. What can one conclude but that the Vatican has de facto abandoned the conversion of the Jews, and the return of the Orthodox and Protestants to Catholic unity. (Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Great Facade. Remnant Press, 2002, pp. 203-204.)
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has let stand the remarks made by Raniero Cantalamessa and Walter Kasper and Gianfranco Ravasi. He has made many of his own, both as Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger and as "Pope"Benedict XVI:
Cardinal Ratzinger himself began backpedaling almost immediately at the September 5  press conference itself. According to the Italian bishops' newspaper Avvenire, when asked whether DI [Dominus Iesus] taught that the Jews could not be saved without faith in Christ, Ratzinger offered the following non-answer: "Every Catholic theologian recognizes the salvific role of that people." Granted that "salvation is of the Jews," as our Lord taught us (John 4:22), but as He says immediately afterward: "But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth"--that is, the Messiah has arrived and shall be adored by those who worship truly. Having rejected the Messiah, however, what "salvific role" does modern Israel play today? When pressed on whether an individual Jew could be saved without recognizing Christ, the Cardinal replied that "it is not necessary that he recognize Christ the savior, and it is not given to us to explore how salvation, the gift of God, can come even for him." Ratzinger went on to say that "Christ is a reality that changes history, even for those who do not recognize him." Are we to take from this that Christ saves the Jews whether they recognize him or not, simply because His existence "changes history"?
However, it appears that at the same press conference Ratzinger gave a more nuanced answer, apparently in response to another questioner:
[We]e are in agreement that a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved, if there are insurmountable impediments, of which he is not blameworthy, to preclude it. However...Christian history affects us all, even those who are opposed or cannot encounter Christ. This is a reality that transforms history; it is something important for others, without violating their conscience.
Now, which is it--that a Jew need not recognize Christ in order to be saved, or that a Jew need not recognize Christ if there is an "insurmountable impediment"? Note also that Cardinal Ratzinger here repeats the suggestion that the mere presence of Christ in history "affects" Jews who reject him. What does this mean? One thing all these remarks mean is a diminution of the impact of DI's teaching that Christ is the sole mediator of the only way of salvation for all men--a teaching DI itself nuances nearly to the point of irrelevance.
Since the publication of DI was supposed to be the occasion for clarifying confusion about Christ and salvation, why not end a long period of postconciliar confusion by stating forthrightly what the Church always taught before the Council: "Yes, objectively speaking, a Jew must come to Christ and be baptized in order to be saved, just like everyone else in the human race; for Christ is God and He commissioned His Church to make disciples of all nations. This is what the Catholic Church has always taught and always will teach." Instead, Cardinal Ratzinger immediately focused on "insurmountable impediments." And what is an "insurmountable impediment" in the first place? Is this notion something even broader than the ever-expanding category of "invincible ignorance"? Cardinal Ratzinger gave no indications. However, if one of Rabbi Toaff's own predecessors as chief rabbi of Rome, Rabbi Israel Zolli, was able to follow God's grace into the Roman Catholic Church immediately after World War II, then why not Rabbi Toaff himself or any other Jew alive today--especially after thirty-five years of "Jewish-Christian" dialogue," which was supposed to engender greater understanding of the Church on the part of Jews?
Or is the mere fact of being a Jew, immersed in Jewish religion and culture, and facing ostracism if one converts, now to be considered an "insurmountable impediment" to conversion? If so, then no Jew from St. Paul to the present day has ever been subjectively obliged to join the Church; nor has anyone else in religious, emotional or cultural circumstances that would make conversion difficult. But this would mean that the only people obliged to become Catholics are those who would not find conversion unduly burdensome. Everyone else has an "insurmountable impediment." That is the very thesis being promoted by some of the more liberal exponents of "invincible ignorance," who speak of "unconscious psychological blocks" and other elaborate pseudo-scientific excuses for not becoming a Catholic that have proliferated since Vatican II. There is very little place for the power of God's grace in this kind of semi-Pelagian thinking. We are not here contending that Cardinal Ratzinger himself actually teaches anything like this, but in view of the veiled nature of his remarks it is difficult to know what he is teaching. A clarification of DI's "clarifications" is already urgently needed. (Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Great Facade. Remnant Press, 2002, pp. 369-372.)
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 Ratzinger, Preface to The Jewish People and Their Scriptures in the Christian Bible.)
It is clear that this commitment to expressing a specific truth in a new way demands new thinking on this truth and a new and vital relationship with it; it is also clear that new words can only develop if they come from an informed understanding of the truth expressed, and on the other hand, that a reflection on faith also requires that this faith be lived. In this regard, the programme that Pope John XXIII proposed was extremely demanding, indeed, just as the synthesis of fidelity and dynamic is demanding.. . .
Thirdly, linked more generally to this was the problem of religious tolerance - a question that required a new definition of the relationship between the Christian faith and the world religions. In particular, before the recent crimes of the Nazi regime and, in general, with a retrospective look at a long and difficult history, it was necessary to evaluate and define in a new way the relationship between the Church and the faith of Israel. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005)
Gee, who has created the impression that the counterfeit church of conciliarism has no mission from God to seek the conversion of the Jews? The conciliarists themselves, of course, chief among them being Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who never spoke of any need for the Jews to convert during his pilgrimage to Israel in May of 2009 or when he visited the Synagogue of Rome on January 18, 2010, the Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter in the Catholic Church:
3. The passage of time allows us to recognize in
the Twentieth Century a truly tragic period for humanity: ferocious wars
that sowed destruction, death and suffering like never before;
frightening ideologies, rooted in the idolatry of man, of race, and of
the State, which led to brother killing brother. The singular and
deeply disturbing drama of the Shoah represents, as it were, the most
extreme point on the path of hatred that begins when man forgets his
Creator and places himself at the centre of the universe. As I noted
during my visit of 28 May 2006 to the Auschwitz Concentration camp,
which is still profoundly impressed upon my memory, “the rulers of the
Third Reich wanted to crush the entire Jewish people”, and, essentially,
“by wiping out this people, they intended to kill the God who called
Abraham, who spoke on Sinai and laid down principles to serve as a guide
for mankind, principles that remain eternally valid” (Discourse at
Auschwitz-Birkenau Concentration Camp: The Teachings of Pope Benedict
XVI, II, 1 , p.727). (Ratzinger at Rome synagogue: ‘May these wounds be healed forever!’ )
"The singular and deeply
disturbing drama of the Shoah represents, as it were the most extreme
point on the path of hatred that begins when man forgets his Creator and
places himself at the centre of the universe." "Singular" drama of the
"Shoah." No, the greatest crime ever committed was that of Deicide.
"Singular drama of the Shoah"? No, the most extreme
path of hatred was that which was imposed upon the God-Man, Our Blessed
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, as He was put to death by our sins. The
Jews of His time showed Him that they knew full Who He was, God in the
very flesh, and they hated Him, shouting out the following to the
political coward named Pontius Pilate, who wanted to maintain his
position in Roman governance by appeasing the shouts of the crowd
calling out for the Blood of the Divine Redeemer to be shed:
And the governor answering, said to them: Whether
will you of the two to be released unto you? But they said, Barabbas.
Pilate saith to them: What shall I do then with Jesus that is called
Christ? They say all: Let him be crucified. The governor said to them:
Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying: Let
him be crucified. And Pilate seeing that he prevailed nothing, but that
rather a tumult was made; taking water washed his hands before the
people, saying: I am innocent of the blood of this just man; look you to
it. And the whole people answering, said: His blood be upon us and our
children. (Matthew 27: 21-25.)
The Jews of Our Lord's time
knew what they were doing. They did not care. Their descendants have not
cared as they persecuted the Church in her infancy, willingly pointing
out Catholics who were hiding in various places from the Roman
authorities in order to curry favor with those authorities after they
had been dispersed from the Holy Land in 70 A.D. Over thirteen million
Catholics were killed by Roman authorities and their minions in their
occupied lands between 67 A.D. and 313 A.D., and Jews played a role in
seeking to kill the true Faith and those who adhered to it once and for
all during this period of the Church's infancy.
Indeed, it was the Judeo-Masonic warfare against the
Catholic Faith and the Social Reign of Christ the King in the centuries
following the Protestant Revolt and the rise of naturalistic
philosophies and ideologies that made possible the rise of anti-Theistic
regimes such as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Nazi
Germany, both of which were founded in an belief that the spread of
their respective statist ideologies could improve the world. The Jewish
warfare against the Faith was, therefore, in very large measure
responsible for the letting loose of demonic forces that resulted in the
crimes committed by agents of Adolf Hitler's Third Reich. It was the
Judeo-Masonic effort to kill off Christ the King once and for all that
brought out the crimes of the Twentieth Century, which are as of yet
ongoing in the Twenty-first Century as innocent babies are put to deaths
in their mothers' wombs around the world, both by surgical and chemical
means, under cover of the civil law to this very day.
Ratzinger/Benedict's efforts yesterday to defend Pope
Pius XII's "wartime record" without referring to him, a truly shameful
act of cowardice in and of itself, was incomplete and shallow:
Here in this place, how could we not remember the
Roman Jews who were snatched from their homes, before these very walls,
and who with tremendous brutality were killed at Auschwitz? How could
one ever forget their faces, their names, their tears, the desperation
faced by these men, women and children? The extermination of the people
of the Covenant of Moses, at first announced, then systematically
programmed and put into practice in Europe under the Nazi regime, on
that day tragically reached as far as Rome. Unfortunately, many
remained indifferent, but many, including Italian Catholics, sustained
by their faith and by Christian teaching, reacted with courage, often at
risk of their lives, opening their arms to assist the Jewish fugitives
who were being hunted down, and earning perennial gratitude. The
Apostolic See itself provided assistance, often in a hidden and discreet
The memory of these events compels us to strengthen
the bonds that unite us so that our mutual understanding, respect and
acceptance may always increase. (Ratzinger at Rome synagogue: ‘May these wounds be healed forever!’ )
"A hidden and discreet way"?
This is a lie. Adolf Hitler knew that Pope Pius XII was seeking to
rescue the Jews of Europe, which is why he, Hitler, had plans to kidnap
or kill the pontiff and to place a puppet "pope" on the Throne of Saint
Peter. Although Ratzinger/Benedict has spoken of Pope Pius XII's efforts
in other forums, he had an opportunity yesterday to remind the Jews
gathered there that our last true pope's efforts were so courageous that
they inspired one of Rabbi Riccardo Di Segni's own predecessors as the
Grand Rabbi of Rome, Israel Zolli, to convert to the Catholic Faith on
February 13, 1945, as he took the baptismal name of Eugenio Maria in
honor of Pope Pius XII himself (see The Truth About Pope Pius XII).
Perhaps the most glaring apostate statement made by Ratzinger/Benedict twenty-seven months ago now when he visited the Rome Synagogue was this one:
7. As Moses taught in the
Shema (cf. Dt 6:5; Lev 19:34) – and as Jesus reaffirms in the Gospel
(cf. Mk 12:19-31), all of the Commandments are summed up in the love of
God and loving-kindness towards one’s neighbour. This Rule urges Jews
and Christians to exercise, in our time, a special generosity towards
the poor, towards women and children, strangers, the sick, the weak and
the needy. In the Jewish tradition there is a wonderful saying of the
Fathers of Israel: “Simon the Just often said: The world is founded on
three things: the Torah, worship, and acts of mercy” (Avoth 1:2). In
exercising justice and mercy, Jews and Christians are called to announce
and to bear witness to the coming Kingdom of the Most High, for which
we pray and work in hope each day.
8. On this path we can walk together, aware of
the differences that exist between us, but also aware of the fact that
when we succeed in uniting our hearts and our hands in response to the
Lord’s call, his light comes closer and shines on all the peoples of the
world. The progress made in the last forty years by the International
Committee for Catholic-Jewish Relations and, in more recent years, by
the Mixed Commission of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and of the Holy
See, are a sign of our common will to continue an open and sincere
dialogue. Tomorrow here in Rome, in fact, the Mixed Commission will
hold its ninth meeting, on “Catholic and Jewish Teaching on Creation and
the Environment”; we wish them a profitable dialogue on such a timely
and important theme.
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 at Rome synagogue: ‘May these wounds be healed forever!’ )
"The word is founded on three
things: the Torah, worship, and acts of mercy." The world is founded on
the totality of the Divine Revelation that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church and on nothing else
She alone offers the only worship that is pleasing to the Most Blessed
Trinity, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which is the unbloody
re-presentation of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Sacrifice
of Himself to His Co-Equal and Co-Eternal Father on the wood of the
Holy Cross in atonement for our sins.
"Jews and Christians are called to announce and to
bear witness to the coming Kingdom of the Most High, for which we pray
and work in hope each day"? This makes it appear as though that Jews
indeed are justified in waiting for what they believe is the First
Coming of the Messiah in time, which Jews believe will be His one and
only coming. This kind of talk represents "progress" all right, the
"progress" of sending souls on a path straight to Hell as Catholics and
non-Catholics alike are convinced that the efforts of Saint Peter and
the other Apostles to covert the Jews were either wrong or have become
"outdated" as a result of the "Shoah" and the "Second" Vatican Council's
response to it.
"Reciprocal respect"? "Dialogue." Let us turn once again to Saint John Chrysostom, whose feast we will celebrate in nine days:
Let that be your judgment about the
synagogue, too. For they brought the books of Moses and the prophets
along with them into the synagogue, not to honor them but to outrage
them with dishonor. When they say that Moses and the prophets knew not
Christ and said nothing about his coming, what greater outrage could
they do to those holy men than to accuse them of failing to recognize
their Master, than to say that those saintly prophets are partners of
their impiety? And so it is that we must hate both them and
their synagogue all the more because of their offensive treatment of
those holy men." (Saint John Chrysostom, Fourth Century, A.D., Saint John Chrysostom: Eight Homilies Against the Jews.)
Many, I know, respect the Jews and think
that their present way of life is a venerable one. This is why I hasten
to uproot and tear out this deadly opinion. I said that the synagogue is
no better than a theater and I bring forward a prophet as my witness.
Surely the Jews are not more deserving of belief than their prophets.
"You had a harlot's brow; you became shameless before all". Where a
harlot has set herself up, that place is a brothel. But the synagogue is
not only a brothel and a theater; it also is a den of robbers and a
lodging for wild beasts. Jeremiah said: "Your house has become
for me the den of a hyena". He does not simply say "of wild beast", but
"of a filthy wild beast", and again: "I have abandoned my house, I have
cast off my inheritance". But when God forsakes a people, what
hope of salvation is left? When God forsakes a place, that place becomes
the dwelling of demons.
(2) But at any rate the Jews say that they,
too, adore God. God forbid that I say that. No Jew adores God! Who says
so? The Son of God says so. For he said: "If you were to know my
Father, you would also know me. But you neither know me nor do you know
my Father". Could I produce a witness more trustworthy than the Son of
(3) If, then, the Jews fail to know the Father, if
they crucified the Son, if they thrust off the help of the Spirit, who
should not make bold to declare plainly that the synagogue is a dwelling
of demons? God is not worshipped there. Heaven forbid! From now
on it remains a place of idolatry. But still some people pay it honor
as a holy place. (Saint John Chrysostom: Eight Homilies Against the Jews)
Take a look at these words and
compare them to those of Ratzinger/Benedict. These few paragraphs from
Saint John Chrysostom are about as cogent a rebuttal to
Ratzinger/Benedict's apostate words and actions as one is every going to
find. Who pays synagogues honor as holy places? Joseph
Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, that's who. He is an apostate. He is a true
anti-Semite as he is content to leave people steeped in a dead,
superseded religion in their false beliefs until the moments of their
deaths, showing that he is their enemy unto eternity, not their friend
as he is opposing that which can effect their salvation, namely, their
conversion to the true Faith.
Alas, Catholics have become so accustomed to apostasy
that they do not even blink when a putative "pope" violates the First
and Second Commandments by entering into a synagogue, no less entering
into that place of false worship without exhorting anyone that they need
to the convert to the true Faith to save their immortal souls. Gone
from the Catholic consciousness of most baptized Catholics are the
truths written by Bishop George Hay over 200 years ago now::
The spirit of Christ, which dictated the Holy
Scriptures, and the spirit which animates and guides the Church of
Christ, and teaches her all truth, is the same; and therefore in
all ages her conduct on this point has been uniformly the same as what
the Holy Scripture teaches. She has constantly forbidden her children to
hold any communication, in religious matters, with those who are
separated from her communion; and this she has sometimes done under the
most severe penalties. In the apostolical canons, which are of
very ancient standing, and for the most part handed down from the
apostolical age, it is thus decreed: "If any bishop, or priest, or deacon, shall join in prayers with heretics, let him be suspended from Communion". (Can. 44)
Also, "If any clergyman or laic shall go
into the synagogue of the Jews, or the meetings of heretics, to join in
prayer with them, let him be deposed, and deprived of communion". (Can. 63) (Bishop George Hay, (The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion.)
No, Mr. Meotti, the man you think is the "pope" did not convey a "discreet" message exhorting the Jews to convert. He fully reaffirmed adherents of the Talmud in their thoroughly false religion:
10. Finally, I offer a particular reflection on
this, our city of Rome, where, for nearly two millennia, as Pope John
Paul II said, the Catholic Community with its Bishop and the Jewish
Community with its Chief Rabbi have lived side by side. May this
proximity be animated by a growing fraternal love, expressed also in
closer cooperation, so that we may offer a valid contribution to solving
the problems and difficulties that we still face.
I beg from the Lord the precious gift of peace in
the world, above all in the Holy Land. During my pilgrimage there last
May, at the Western Wall in Jerusalem, I prayed to Him who can do all
things, asking: “Send your peace upon this Holy Land, upon the Middle
East, upon the entire human family; stir the hearts of those who call
upon your name, to walk humbly in the path of justice and compassion”
(Prayer at the Western Wall of Jerusalem, 12 May 2009).
I give thanks and praise to God once again for this
encounter, asking him to strengthen our fraternal bonds and to deepen
our mutual understanding. (Ratzinger at Rome synagogue: ‘May these wounds be healed forever!’ )
Solve problems and
difficulties? It is impossible to do that unless one has the spirit of
the aforementioned Pope Saint Pius X, who wrote the following in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:
Here we have, founded by Catholics, an
inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of
civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for
there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true
moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a
historical fact. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)
No, Venerable Brethren, We must repeat with the
utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when
everyone takes it upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker - the
City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot
be setup unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the
work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New
City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is:
it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to
be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of
insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants. omnia instaurare in Christo. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)
Although the appendix below lists many other examples of how the lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have expressed "openness" to the false religion of Talmudic Judaism, suffice it for the moment to quote the conciliar church's little known but still nevertheless published "note," issued by the "Pontifical" Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews in 1985 (it was published on L'Ossevatore Romano on July 1, 1985, the Feast of the Most Precious Blood of Jesus) concerning the "enduring validity" of the Old Covenant of the Jews that ended with the Redemptive Act of Christ the King, the very Son of God made Man in the Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of God the Holy Ghost:
The permanence of Israel (while so many ancient
peoples have disappeared without trace) is a historic fact and a sign to be
interpreted within God's design. We must in any case rid ourselves of the
traditional idea of a people punished, preserved as a living
argument for Christian apologetic. It remains a chosen people, "the
pure olive on which were grafted the branches of the wild olive which are the
gentiles" (John Paul II, 6th March, 1982, alluding to Rom 11:17-24).
We must remember how much the balance of relations between Jews and Christians
over two thousand years has been negative. We must remind ourselves how the
permanence of Israel is accompanied by a continuous spiritual fecundity, in
the rabbinical period, in the Middle Ages and in modern times, taking its
start from a patrimony which we long shared, so much so that "the faith
and religious life of the Jewish people as they are professed and practised
still today, can greatly help us to understand better certain aspects of the
life of the Church" (John Paul II, March 6th, 1982). Catechesis should on
the other hand help in understanding the meaning for the Jews of the
extermination during the years 1939-1945, and its consequences. (Notes on the correct way to present the Jews and Judaism in Preaching and Catechesis.)
Anyone, including Mr. Meotti, who believes that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is willing to "receive" his "wayward" sheep in the Society of Saint Pius X into his church of apostasy by embracing "anti-Semitism" is simply detached from reality or seeking to roil the waters in order to make difficult a "reconciliation" that "ultra-progressives" inside of the conciliar structures fear will retard the revolutionary "progress" that they have made in the past fifty years in eradicating even the vestiges of Catholic Tradition from the hearts and minds of most Catholics. Quite the opposite is true! Ratzinger/Benedict believes that having a "neutralized" Society of Saint Pius X inside of his One World Ecumenical Church will "bring them around" to the conciliar view on all things, including that of the "enduring validity" of the so-called "faith of Israel." He is simply willing to do what his impatient "ultra-progressives," who are always useful to him to make him appear in the eyes of traditionally-minded Catholics in the conciliar structures to be a "sympathetic" "pope" under attack from his "left" flank, are unwilling to do: namely: wait out the "integrists" until the more "radical" of their number die out in due course.
I mean, after all, one just has to read the text of Jesus of Nazareth Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection to know Ratzinger/Benedict is a full supporter of the "faith of Israel." (See Coloring Everything He Says and Does, part one and Coloring Everything He Says and Does, part two.)
Ratzinger/Benedict himself is personally responsible for enabling and empowering the ancient enemies of the Church.
It was Ratzinger/Benedict who yielded to pressure from Talmudic organizations to "revise" the Good Friday Prayer for the Jews in the Missal of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII after the issuance of Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007.
It was, as noted above, Ratzinger/Benedict's officials at the time (Walter Kasper and Gianfranco Ravasi) who went to great lengths to appease the anger of leading adherents after the text of the "revised" Prayer for the Jews was released in February of 2008.
It was Ratzinger/Benedict who met in October of 2008 with a group of Talmudic representatives who were "concerned" about the conciliar "canonization" process of Pope Pius XII, prompting me to write the following at the time:
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI may very well proceed with the conciliar "canonization" of Pope Pius XII, although it appears now that there will indeed be a six or seven year period of delay as documents in the Vatican archives are reviewed. The mere fact, however, that he would give any credence whatsoever to a group of men who deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and who make war continuously against His Holy Mother Church and the right ordering of nations speaks volumes about the apostate nature of conciliarism. It does not enter into this "pope's" Modernist mind to exhort representatives of the blasphemous Talmud to convert unconditionally to the true Faith as Saint Peter exhorted the Jews on Pentecost Sunday and as Pope Saint Pius X did in his meeting the founder of international Zionism, Theodore Herzl, on January 25, 1904.
The conciliar "popes" have made it appear as though the Catholic Church needs "input" from those who deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ about how to express her doctrines and how to offer her Divine Liturgy and how she goes about the matter of her internal governance. Could anyone imagine the outrage if a Catholic sought to tell a rabbi what he should believe about his false religion and how he should conduct his synagogue services and how to govern his congregation? We know that such a person would be deemed as an "anti-Semite."
It is the conciliar "popes" who have given the ancient enemies of the Church "influence" within the halls of the counterfeit church of conciliar as they, the conciliar officials, have indeed changed the perennial doctrine and praxis of the Catholic Church dating back to Saint Peter's first Papal discourse on the first Pentecost Sunday. And it is simply dishonest for Mr. Meotti and his Talmudic friends to be at all concerned about any "rupture" with the spirit or the letter of the "magisterium" of the conciliar church's false teaching on the Jews, for whose conversion we must pray every day without fail.
By mixing truth with error, the counterfeit church of conciliarism confuses Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Indeed, the fact that Jews were absolutely clear concerning the Catholic Church's teaching about their dead, superseded religion prior to the "Second" Vatican Council and that they are unclear today is the result of the apostate spirit of contradiction that is included in the documents of the counterfeit church of conciliarism and by the words and actions of the conciliar "pontiffs" that sometimes go beyond conciliarism's "official" texts. None of this can come from the Catholic Church, as Pope Pius XI noted in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928:
For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)
Let us ask Our Lady, she who is the Queen of the Apostles, the men who began the missionary work of the Church on the first Pentecost Sunday by seeking the conversion of the Jews, a missionary work that can never be "lost" or that has any kind of "expiration" date, for the graces to remain steadfast in our defense of the honor and glory and majesty of God when he is so blasphemed and offended by the words and deeds of men who bend over backwards to please non-Catholics as they fear not to offend Him by esteeming the symbols and the places of false religions and as they dare to assert that the "beliefs" of these false religions can contribute to the "better world."
We must make much reparation for our own sins as we seek each week to be cleansed in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance at the hands of true bishops and true priests who make no concessions to conciliarism at all and as we give all of our efforts to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saint Fidelis of Sigmaringen, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints