Propagating Only What His Boss Believes and Teaches
Part One
by Thomas A. Droleskey
Back in my days when I was singing the old songs as an apologist for the man, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, I though was just waiting for the "right time" to "restore" order and sanity to the Catholic Church, I swatted away at an assort of of conciliar "cardinals" and "bishops," thinking that I was "helping" the "suffering pope" who was surrounded by "enemies" to ferret out the "bad guys" when he was "ready" to pounce on them.
That was delusional, of course.
My last such effort to "help" the "suffering pope" came in March of 1994 when, as noted several times before on this site, the late Father John A. Hardon, S.J., asked me to get in contact with Mother Teresa, whose support for conciliarism was documented very well by the late Dr. Rama (see A Correspondence with Mother Teresa), to convince the "pope" not to give permission for altar girls. I tracked her down in Hong Kong. She was very concerned, telling me that "This will be a disaster for the Church." Mother Teresa, who had promised Dr. Coomaraswamy that the "pope" would give him "permission" to attend the Immemorial Mass of Tradition only to find that the answer was "absolutely not," was not successful in her mission. And it was then that I stopped being an apologist for the "pope," seeing refuge as much as I could from the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service in venues where I could get "approved" offerings/stagings of the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition.
Thus it is that those who continue to this day to try find any degree of "daylight" between the errors and heresies advanced by one of the "pope's" curial "cardinals" or by one of his "bishops" with the false claimant to the papal throne himself are engaged are simply the old songs once again. A disservice is done to the cause of truth to ignore the simple fact there is no daylight between a particular conciliar "pope" or his "cardinals" and "bishops" as these Modernists live in their own alternative universes of blasphemy, sacrilege and apostasy.
This all comes to mind in light of an address delivered at the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas, The Angelicum, on Wednesday, December 5, 2012, by Kurt "Cardinal" Koch, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's personally chosen appointee in 2010 to succeed friend and fellow countryman Walter "Cardinal" Kasper (see Forever Prowling the World Seeking the Ruin of Souls, part 1, Forever Prowling the World Seeking The Ruin of Souls, part 2, Madness Writ Large, Kasper's Brag and, among many others, When Apostates Are Two of a Kind) as the president of the "Pontifical" Council for Interreligious Relations and as the president of the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews. There is no "daylight" between the Swiss Kurt Koch and the German Joseph Ratzinger on any theological matters, including the convoluted and sometimes mutually contradictory apostasies taught by the counterfeit church of conciliarism about Talmudism and its "relationship" with the true God of Divine Revelation.
Although longtime readers of this site may find this commentary to be redundant as I have written so many similar ones in the past, I am aware that there are new readers to the site now and again. It is as a service to newer readers and also to readers of longer standing who may have forgotten the points found herein that this effort to demonstrate the Kurt Koch is only propagating what his boss, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI believes and teaches is being undertaken. What applies to the one applies equally to another.
First of all, the whole premise of "Cardinal" Koch's address speaks volumes about its apostate nature. Here is its description as provided by Vatican Radio:
Cardinal Kurt Koch, who heads the Vatican’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, gave a lecture on Wednesday at the Pontifical ‘Angelicum’ University on the past 50 years of Christian-Jewish dialogue since the Second Vatican Council. The lecture, organised by the University’s John Paul II Center for Interreligious Dialogue and the Russell Berrie Foundation, was entitled ‘Building on Nostra Aetate’ the landmark declaration which marks the Magna Carta of the Church’s relationship to the Jewish people. In his talk, the Swiss Cardinal reviewed developments that have taken place since then and explored some open theological questions in the dialogue between the two faiths. (Swiss Apostate Apes Ratzinger by Denying Catholic Teaching About the Jews.)
Open theological questions?
Pray tell, how is it possible for there to be any "open theological questions" between the true Faith, Catholicism, and a false religion?
There are and can be no "open questions."
Non-Catholics must convert to the Catholic Faith and accept the totality of the Sacred Deposit of Faith as taught and defined by Holy Mother Church without any dissent whatsoever as they abjure all past errors.
Open theological questions between the the Faith, Catholicism, and one that denies the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ?
All "questions" were resolved when the first pope delivered the first Ubi et Orbi Address, if you will, on the first Pentecost Sunday after the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity in tongues of flame upon Our Lady and the Apostles and the others gathered in the same Upper Room in Jerusalem where Our Lord had instituted the Holy Priesthood and the Holy Eucharist at the Last Supper on Maundy Thursday:
Ye men of Judea, and all you that dwell in Jerusalem, be this known to you, and with your ears receive my words. For these are not drunk, as you suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day:
But this is that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel: And it shall come to pass, in the last days, (saith the Lord,) I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams. And upon my servants indeed, and upon my handmaids will I pour out in those days of my spirit, and they shall prophesy. And I will shew wonders in the heaven above, and signs on the earth beneath: blood and fire, and vapour of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and manifest day of the Lord come.
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved. Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him, in the midst of you, as you also know: This same being delivered up, by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you by the hands of wicked men have crucified and slain. Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the sorrows of hell, as it was impossible that he should be holden by it. For David saith concerning him: I foresaw the Lord before my face: because he is at my right hand, that I may not be moved.
For this my heart hath been glad, and any tongue hath rejoiced: moreover my flesh also shall rest in hope. Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, nor suffer thy Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life: thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. Ye men, brethren, let me freely speak to you of the patriarch David; that he died, and was buried; and his sepulchre is with us to this present day. Whereas therefore he was a prophet, and knew that God hath sworn to him with an oath, that of the fruit of his loins one should sit upon his throne.
Foreseeing this, he spoke of the resurrection of Christ. For neither was he left in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised again, whereof all we are witnesses. Being exalted therefore by the right hand of God, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath poured forth this which you see and hear. For David ascended not into heaven; but he himself said: The Lord said to my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy enemies thy footstool.
Therefore let all the house of Israel know most certainly, that God hath made both Lord and Christ, this same Jesus, whom you have crucified. Now when they had heard these things, they had compunction in their heart, and said to Peter, and to the rest of the apostles: What shall we do, men and brethren? But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call. And with very many other words did he testify and exhort them, saying: Save yourselves from this perverse generation.
They therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls. And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers. And fear came upon every soul: many wonders also and signs were done by the apostles in Jerusalem, and there was great fear in all. And all they that believed, were together, and had all things common. Their possessions and goods they sold, and divided them to all, according as every one had need. (Acts 2: 14-41.)
Any questions?
Good.
There are none.
Oh.
You want me to proceed.
All right.
I will proceed.
Koch began his address with a review what he claimed was the "anti-Semitism" responsible for the crimes committed by the agents of Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime:
On the Catholic side, the Declaration of the Second Vatican Council on
the relationship of the church to the non–Christian religions, “Nostra
aetate”, can be considered the beginning of a systematic dialogue with
the Jews. Still today it is considered the “foundation document” and the
“Magna Charta” of the dialogue of the Roman Catholic Church with
Judaism, so my tour d’horizon of the Jewish–Catholic conversation must
begin there. It did not develop in a vacuum, since on the Christian side
there had already been approaches to Judaism both within and outside
the Catholic Church before the Council. But after the unprecedented
crime of the Shoah above all, an effort was made in the post–War period
towards a theologically reflected re–definition of the relationship with
Judaism. (Swiss Apostate Apes Ratzinger by Denying Catholic Teaching About the Jews.)
This is identical to what Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI said in his infamous address to the members of his curia on December 22, 2005:
Secondly, it was necessary to give a new definition to the
relationship between the Church and the modern State that would make
room impartially for citizens of various religions and ideologies,
merely assuming responsibility for an orderly and tolerant coexistence
among them and for the freedom to practise their own religion.
Thirdly, linked more generally to this was the problem of religious
tolerance - a question that required a new definition of the
relationship between the Christian faith and the world religions. In
particular, before the recent crimes of the Nazi regime and, in general,
with a retrospective look at a long and difficult history, it was
necessary to evaluate and define in a new way the relationship between
the Church and the faith of Israel.
These are all subjects of great importance - they were the great
themes of the second part of the Council - on which it is impossible to
reflect more broadly in this context. It is clear that in all these
sectors, which all together form a single problem, some kind of
discontinuity might emerge. Indeed, a discontinuity had been revealed
but in which, after the various distinctions between concrete historical
situations and their requirements had been made, the continuity of
principles proved not to have been abandoned. It is easy to miss this
fact at a first glance.
It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at
different levels that the very nature of true reform consists. In this
process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more
practically than before that the Church's decisions on contingent
matters - for example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free
interpretation of the Bible - should necessarily be contingent
themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is
changeable in itself. It was necessary to learn to recognize that in
these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent
aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from
within. On the other hand, not so permanent are the
practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are
therefore subject to change.
It is clear that this commitment to
expressing a specific truth in a new way demands new thinking on this
truth and a new and vital relationship with it; it is also clear that
new words can only develop if they come from an informed understanding
of the truth expressed, and on the other hand, that a reflection on
faith also requires that this faith be lived. In this regard,
the programme that Pope John XXIII proposed was extremely demanding,
indeed, just as the synthesis of fidelity and dynamic is demanding.. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005)
For Ratzinger/Benedict and his Swiss stooge to be correct, of course, God
the Holy Ghost not only hid this "knowledge" that had to be
"learned," but He permitted a solemn dogmatic council, the [First]
Vatican Council, to falsely condemn the whole concept of viewing
dogmatic statements in light of the historical circumstances in which
they written. This means that, ipso facto, the Catholic Church
has no infallibility whatsoever and that God the Holy Ghost misdirected
the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council and that the true popes who
reiterated the condemnation were themselves mistaken.
Why this blasphemy against God the Holy Ghost?
To please the Talmudists in order to "prove" that the corrupted brand of Catholicism declared, embraced and propagated by the lords of conciliarism is a "safe" brand of Catholicism, one that has "learned" the supposed "lessons" of the past, one that has "learned" to avoid even the appearance of an alleged "anti-Semitism" as well as to reject even the whiff of anti-Judaism.
To the next excerpt from "Cardinal" Koch's address at The Angelicum five days ago now:
Following the mass murder of the European Jews planned and
executed by the National Socialists with industrial perfection, a
profound examination of conscience was initiated about how such a
barbaric scenario was possible in the Christian–oriented West. Must we
assume that anti–Jewish tendencies present within Christianity for
centuries were complicit in the anti–Semitism of the Nazis, racially
motivated and led astray by a godless and neo–pagan ideology, or simply
allowing it to run its course? Among Christians too there were both
perpetrators and victims; but the broad masses surely consisted of
passive spectators who kept their eyes closed in the face of this brutal
reality. The Shoah therefore became a question and an accusation
against Christianity: Why did Christian resistance against the boundless
brutality of the Nazi crimes not demonstrate that measure and that
clarity which one should rightfully have expected? Have Christians and
Jews today the will and the strength for conciliation and reconciliation
on the common foundation of faith in the one and only God of Israel?
What significance does Judaism have in the future for churches and
ecclesial communities, and in what theological relationship do we stand
today in connection with Judaism? (Swiss Apostate Apes Ratzinger by Denying Catholic Teaching About the Jews.)
Idiots.
Fools.
Morons.
All around Modernist nincompoops and scalawags.
Too strong?
Hardly.
Only an idiot, a fool, a moron and all around Modernist nincompoop and scalawag would ask questions that display a total loss of the Catholic Faith as well not even a facile understanding of the events of human history that must be seen in Its light.
How were the crimes, no matter their number, of the National Socialists made possible?
By the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolution in the Sixteenth Century and the subsequent rise of the anti-Incarnational naturalism of Judeo-Masonry that sought to institutionalize the separation of Church and State as a sign of "social progress," thereby making possible the rise of unfettered statism, whether of the false opposites of the "right" or of the "left."
Thus it is that Talmudic financiers and industrialists and educators and lawyers of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth and early-Twentieth Centuries made it their goal to eradicate all trace of the Social Reign of Christ the King in Europe. It was such individuals who made possible the rise of Bolshevism in Russia, which provided Adolf Hitler, who was a socialist, of course, albeit not a Bolshevik, and his regime, which merely aped the totalitarian methods that were instituted by Vladimir I. Lenin in 1917 and 1918. It was precisely because the Divinely-instituted check in the abuse of civil power provided by the Catholic Church in her exercise of the Social Reign of Christ the King had been overthrown, mocked and reviled that the totalitarian regimes of Modernity came into existence.
In other words, the question posed by the Swiss apostate must be rephrased.
Who bears responsible for the rise of the National Socialists and for the Bolsheviks as the successors of the French Revolutionaries?
Adherents of the Talmud.
"Have Christians and
Jews today the will and the strength for conciliation and reconciliation
on the common foundation of faith in the one and only God of Israel?"
There is no such common "foundation of faith."
Once again, my good and relatively few readers, there is no "daylight" here between the Swiss guard of Modernism and his German boss of the "new theology:"
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!’ )
There is no "daylight" between Koch and Ratzinger/Benedict. None whatsoever. Both are apostates and blasphemers.
Ah, but there is a night and day difference between the heresies of these Modernists and what has been taught by the Catholic Church and explicated so clearly by Church Fathers and Doctors such as Saint John Chrysostom:
(2) But at any rate the Jews say that they, too, adore God. God forbid that I say that. No Jew adores God! Who says so? The Son of God says so. For he said: "If you were to know my Father, you would also know me. But you neither know me nor do you know my Father". Could I produce a witness more trustworthy than the Son of God?
(3) If, then, the Jews fail to know the Father, if they crucified the Son, if they thrust off the help of the Spirit, who should not make bold to declare plainly that the synagogue is a dwelling of demons? God is not worshipped there. Heaven forbid! From now on it remains a place of idolatry. But still some people pay it honor as a holy place. (Saint John Chrysostom: Eight Homilies Against the Jews)
Koch and Ratzinger/Benedict are blasphemers as to assert that Jews and Christians have a "common faith" and "pray to the same Lord" is to make a mockery of the very identity of God as a Trinity of Persons revealed to us definitively by the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity made Man in Our Lady's Virginal and Immaculate Womb at the Annunciation.
"What significance does Judaism have in the future for churches and
ecclesial communities, and in what theological relationship do we stand
today in connection with Judaism?"
Perhaps Talmudism has a "future" in the disintegrating entity known as the counterfeit church of conciliarism and in the already demolished ranks of the "mainstream" Protestant sects with whom the leaders of the Occupy Vatican Movement engage in "dialogue." After all, Talmudism has helped to create and nurture conciliarism.
False religions, however, do not carry any significance for the Catholic Church, whose only "relationship" with their adherents is to seek with urgency their unconditional conversion.
Here are just two examples, one that occurred on January 20, 1842, and the other on January 25, 1904, proving that the Mother of God herself and the last true pope to be raised to the altars of Holy Mother Church understood that Jews must be converted to the Catholic Faith. Period:
"When I traversed the church, I arrived at the spot
where they were getting ready for the funeral. Suddenly I felt
interiorly disturbed, and saw in front of me something like a veil. It
seemed to me that the entire church had been swallowed up in shadow,
except one chapel. It was as thought all the light was concentrated in
that single place. I looked over towards this chapel whence so much
light shone and above the altar I saw a living figure standing, tall,
majestic, beautiful and full of mercy. It was the most Holy
Virgin Mary, resembling her figure on the Miraculous Medal of the
Immaculate. At this sight I fell on my knees right where I stood;
several times I attempted to lift my eyes towards the Most Blessed
Virgin, but respect and the blinding light forced me to lower my gaze;
this, however, did not prevent me from seeing the luminosity of the
apparition. I fixed my glance on her hands, and in them I could read the
expression of mercy and pardon. In the presence of the most Blessed
Virgin, even though she did not speak a word to me, I understood the
frightful situation I was in, the heinousness of sin, the beauty of the
Catholic religion . . . in a word, I understood everything.
"When he returned, M. de Bussieres found me
kneeling, my head resting on the railing of the chapel where the most
Blessed Virgin had appeared, and bathed in tears. I do not understand
how I managed to get to the railing, because I had fallen to my knees on
the other side of the nave, and the catafalque stood between me and the
chapel. I must add that the feeling that accompanied my weeping was one
of gratitude towards the Blessed Virgin and of pity for my family,
buried in the darkness of Judaism, for heretics and for sinners. M. de
Bussieres raised me up and, still weeping, I told him, 'Oh, that person
must have prayed very much for me,' thinking of the deceased Count de
Laferronays. [Father Kolbe note: "M. de Bussieres had in fact
recommended Ratisbonne to the prayers of M. de Laferronays."]
"He asked me several questions, but I could not
answer, so deeply was I moved. So he took me by the hand, led me out of
the church to the carriage and helped me to get in. Then he asked me
where I wanted to go.
"Take me wherever you like," I said, "after what I have seen, I will do anything you want."
"'But what did you see?' he asked me.
"I cannot tell you; but please bring me to a confessor, and I will tell him everything on my knees."
"He brought me to the church of the Gesu, to a
Jesuit, Father Villefort, to whom in the presence of M. de Bussieres, I
related all that had happened to me."
(In his letter he continues.)
"All I can say of myself comes down to
this: that in an instant a veil fell from my eyes; or rather not a
single veil, but many of the veils which surrounded me were dissipated
one after the other, like snow, mud and ice under the burning rays of
the sun. I felt as though I were emerging from a tomb, from a dark
grave; that I was beginning to be a living being, enjoying a real life.
And yet I wept. I could see into the depths of my frightful misery, from
which infinite mercy had liberated me. My whole being shivered at the
sight of my transgressions; I was shaken, overcome by amazement and
gratitude. I thought of my brother with indescribable joy; and to my
tears of love there were joined tears of compassion. How many persons in
this world, alas, are going down unknowingly into the abyss, their eyes
shut by pride and indifference!They are being swallowed up alive by
those horrifying shadows; and among them are my family, my fiancee, my
poor sisters. What a bitter thought! My mind turned to you, whom I love
so much; for you I offered my first prayers. Will you some day raise
your eyes towards the Savior of the world, whose blood washed away
original sin? How monstrous is the stain of that sin, because of which
man no longer bears the resemblance to God!
"They asked me now I had come to know these truths,
since they all knew that I had never so much as opened a book dealing
with religion, head not even read a single page of the Bible, while
the dogma of original sin, entirely forgotten or denied by modern Jews,
had never occupied my mind for a single instant. I am no sure that I
had even heard its name. So how had I come to know these truths? I
cannot tell' all I know is that when I entered the church, I was
ignorant of all this, whereas when I left I could see it all with
blinding clarity. I cannot explain this change except by
comparing myself to a man who suddenly awakens from deep sleep or to
someone born blind who suddenly acquires sight. He sees, even though he
cannot describe his sensations or pinpoint what enlightens him and makes
it possible for him to admire the things around him. If we cannot
adequately explain natural light, how can we describe a light the
substance of which is truth itself? I think I am expressing myself
correctly when I say that I did not have any verbal knowledge, but had
come to possess the meaning and spirit of the dogmas, to feel rather
than see these things, to experience them with the help of the
inexpressible power which was at work within me.
"The love of God had taken the place of all other
loves, to such an extent that I loved even my fiancee, but in a
different way. I loved her like someone whom God held in his hands, like
a precious gift which inspires an even greater love for the giver."
(As they wanted to delay his Baptism, Ratisbonne pleaded.)
"What? The Jews who heard the preaching of
the apostles were baptized at once; and you wish to delay Baptism for me
who have heard the Queen of the apostles?"
"My emotion, my ardent desires and my
prayers finally induced these good men to fix a date for my Baptism. I
awaited the appointed day with impatience, because I realized how
displeasing I was in the eyes of God.
(Finally the 31st of January came. He described his Baptism.)
"Immediately after Baptism I felt myself filled
with sentiments of veneration and filial love for the Holy Father; I
considered myself fortunate when I was told that I would be granted an
audience with the Pontiff, accompanied by the General of the Jesuits. In
spite of all this I was quite nervous, because I had never frequented
the important people of this world; although these important people
seemed to me too insignificant when compared to true grandeur. I must
confess that I included among these great ones of the world the one who
on this earth holds God's highest power, i.e., the pope, the successor
of Jesus Christ himself, whose indestructible chair he occupies.
"Never will I forget my trepidation and the
beatings of my heart when I entered the Vatican and traversed the
spacious courtyards and majestic halls leading to the sacred premises
where the pope resides. When I beheld him, though, my nervousness
suddenly gave way to amazement. He was so simple, humble and paternal.
This was no monarch, but a father who with unrestrained love treated me
like a cherished son.
"O good God! Will it be thus when I appear before
you to give you an account of the graces I hare received? Awe fills me
at the mere thought of God's greatness, and I tremble before his
justice; but at the sight of his mercy my confidence revives, and with
confidence so will my love and unbounded gratitude.
"Yes, gratitude will from now on be my law and my life . I cannot express it in words; so I shall strive to do so in deeds. The
letters received from my family give me full liberty; I wish to
consecrate this liberty to God, and I offer it to him from this very
moment, along with my whole life, to serve the Church and my brothers
under the protection of the most Blessed Virgin Mary." (An
account of the miraculous conversion of Alphonse Ratisbonne by Our Lady
in the Church of San Andrea delle Fratte on January 20, 1842, as found
in: Father Anselm W. Romb, OFM Conv., Commentator and Editor, The Writings of St. Maximilian M. Kolbe, OFM Conv.: The Kolbe Reader, pp. 22-31.)
Pope Saint Pius X: We are unable to favor this movement [of
Zionism]. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem—but we
could never sanction it. The ground of Jerusalem, if it were not always
sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of
the Church I cannot answer you otherwise. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people.
Theodore Herzl: [The conflict
between Rome and Jerusalem, represented by the one and the other of us,
was once again under way. At the outset I tried to be conciliatory. I
said my little piece. . . . It didn’t greatly impress him. Jerusalem was
not to be placed in Jewish hands.] And its present status, Holy Father?
POPE: I know, it is disagreeable to see the Turks in possession of our
Holy Places. We simply have to put up with it. But to sanction the
Jewish wish to occupy these sites, that we cannot do.
HERZL: [I said that we based our movement solely on the sufferings of the Jews, and wished to put aside all religious issues].
POPE: Yes, but we, but I as the head of the Catholic Church, cannot do
this. One of two things will likely happen. Either the Jews will retain
their ancient faith and continue to await the Messiah whom we believe
has already appeared—in which case they are denying the divinity of
Jesus and we cannot assist them. Or else they will go there with no
religion whatever, and then we can have nothing at all to do with them. The
Jewish faith was the foundation of our own, but it has been superceded
by the teachings of Christ, and we cannot admit that it still enjoys any
validity. The Jews who should have been the first to acknowledge Jesus
Christ have not done so to this day.
HERZL: [It was on the tip of my tongue to remark, “It happens in every
family: no one believes in his own relative.” But, instead, I said:]
Terror and persecution were not precisely the best means for converting
the Jews. [His reply had an element of grandeur in its simplicity:]
POPE: Our Lord came without power. He came in peace. He
persecuted no one. He was abandoned even by his apostles. It was only
later that he attained stature. It took three centuries for the Church
to evolve. The Jews therefore had plenty of time in which to accept his
divinity without duress or pressure. But they chose not to do so, and
they have not done it yet. (Marvin Lowenthal, Diaries of Theodore Herzl, pp. 427- 430.)
Come to think of it, perhaps it might be good to add a third example, one that occurred about fourteen years before Our Lady's miraculous conversion of Alphonse Ratisbonne:
There were in John [Bosco]'s class, at the school in Chieri,
several Jews who were in difficulties about their Saturday's work. For
them it was the Sabbath, when all work was forbidden. But the older boys
used to laugh at them as if it were an extra vacation day. John, who
saw that it was a question of conscience, used to send them a list of
the work given out, with the explanations. In consequence, they vowed
him an eternal friendship, and one of them, who used to frequent the
restaurant where John worked, became very intimate with him. One day
this young fellow, whose name was Jonas, got mixed up in a school scrape
and, anxious about the consequences, came to consult his friend.
"If you were a Christian," said John, "I should take you straight off to Confession, but that can't be done."
"Why not? We can go to Confession if we like."
"Perhaps, but you have no Sacrament of Penance, no power to forgive sins, no guarantee of secrecy."
"I will go to a Catholic priest if you like."
"You can't unless you are baptized and believe in Jesus Christ."
"What would they say at home?"
"If God calls you to this, He will protect you."
"What would you do if you were in my place?" asked the young Jew.
"I would begin to study the catechism," said John.
The advice was taken; John prayed. Light and
conviction came to Jonas, but the catechism was discovered. Irate
parents took it to the Rabbi and accused John of betraying the
friendship and ruining the soul of their son. Both friends had a good
deal to suffer; there were even threats of violence. Jonas had to leave
home, but he stood firm in his determination to become a Catholic. In
the end, friends came to his assistance, the young Jew was baptized and
the tumult died down. Several others followed him into the Church. (F.
A. Forbes, Saint John Bosco, reprinted by TAN Books and Publishers, Rockford, Illinois, pp. 25-27.)
Mind you, this is not even to mention the thousands upon thousands of Jews (and Mohammedans, I should note)
Idiots.
Fools.
Morons.
All around Modernist nincompoops and scalawags.
As exhausting as this is for a man still somewhat weakened physically by those broken ribs, let us trudge on to the next excerpt from the Occupy Vatican Movement's Swiss Guard's address delivered at The Angelicum five days ago now:
Soon after the end of the Second World War, the Christian side
confronted the phenomenon of anti–Semitism at the International
Emergency Conference on Anti–Semitism which took place at Seelisberg
from 30 July to 5 August 1947. About 65 persons, Jews and Christians
from various denominations, met for wide–ranging reflection on how
anti–Semitism could be eradicated at its roots. The meeting at
Seelisberg aimed at laying a new foundation for the dialogue between
Jews and Christians, and giving a stimulus towards mutual understanding.
The perspectives which have become known as the “Ten Points of
Seelisberg” have over time become path–breaking, and in one way or
another found their way into the Council declaration “Nostra aetate”,
even though in this text a decidedly theological framework was given to
the relationship with Judaism. This declaration in fact begins with a
reflection on the mystery of the church and a reminder of the deep bond
which links the people of the New Covenant with the tribe of Abraham in a
spiritual way. “Nostra aetate” and the “Ten Points of Seelisberg” both
emphasise that the disdain, disparagement and contempt of Judaism must
be avoided at all costs, and therefore the Jewish roots of Christianity
are explicitly given prominence. At the same time the two declarations
converge – each naturally in a different way – in rejecting the
accusation which has unfortunately survived over centuries in various
places, that the Jews were “deicides”.In the Christian sphere, coming to
terms with the Shoah is certainly one of the major motivations leading
to the drafting of “Nostra aetate”. But other reasons can surely also be
identified: Within Catholic theology following the appearance of the
encyclical “Divino afflante spiritu” by Pope Pius XII in 1943, biblical
studies were opened up – though with cautious beginners’ steps – to
historical–critical biblical interpretation, which implies that one
began to read the biblical texts in their historic context and within
the religious traditions prevailing in their time. This process
ultimately found its doctrinal expression in the Conciliar decree on
divine revelation “Dei verbum”, or more precisely in the instruction
that the exegete should carefully research what the authors of the
biblical texts really intended to say: “Those who search out the
intentions of the sacred writers must among other things have regard for
literary forms. For truth is proposed and expressed in a variety of
ways, depending on whether a text is history of one kind or another, or
whether its form is that of prophecy, poetry or some other form of
speech.” The precise observation of historical religious traditions
reflected in the texts of sacred scripture had as a consequence that the figure of Jesus of Nazareth was located ever more clearly within the
Judaism of his time. In this way the New Testament was placed entirely
within the framework of Jewish traditions, and Jesus was perceived as a
Jew of his time who felt an obligation to these traditions. This view
also found its way into the Council declaration “Nostra aetate”, when it
states with reference to the Letter to the Romans (9:5), that “Jesus
stems according to the flesh from the people of Israel, and the church
recalls the fact that the apostles, her foundation stones and pillars,
sprang from the Jewish people, as well as most of the early disciples
who proclaimed Christ to the world.” Since “Nostra aetate” it has
therefore become part of the cantus firmus of Jewish–Christian dialogue
to call to mind and to emphasise the Jewish roots of the Christian
faith. During his visit to the Roman synagogue on 13 April 1986 Pope
John Paul II expressed this in the vivid and impressive words: “The
Jewish religion is not something ‘extrinsic’ to us but in a certain way
is ‘intrinsic’ to our own religion. With Judaism we therefore have a
relationship we do not have with any other religion. You are our dearly
beloved brothers and in a certain way it could be said, our elder
brothers.” (Swiss Apostate Apes Ratzinger by Denying Catholic Teaching About the Jews.)
Once again, good readers, Kurt "Cardinal" Koch is on the same Modernist radio frequency wavelength as Captain Modernist Video himself, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI:
Furthermore, the Church has not failed to deplore the failings of her sons and daughters, begging forgiveness for all that could in any way have contributed to the scourge of anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism (cf. Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah, 16 March 1998). May these wounds be healed forever! The heartfelt prayer which Pope John Paul II offered at the Western Wall on 26 March 2000 comes back to my mind, and it calls forth a profound echo in our hearts: “God of our Fathers, you chose Abraham and his descendants to bring your Name to the nations: we are deeply saddened by the behaviour of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant.” (Ratzinger at Rome synagogue: ‘May these wounds be healed forever!’ )
First of all, the adherents of the Talmud today, at least for the most part, are not the physical descendants of Abraham. This was a point made very clearly by Father Louis Campbell six years ago now:
Jesus Christ is the Great Prophet foretold by Moses,
Whom all nations and peoples must hear and obey, lest they be "destroyed
from among the people." Jesus was not a mere prophet, like Moses,
Jeremiah, or Isaiah. In Jesus there resided the prophetic gift in all
its fullness. When God speaks, we must listen in fear and trembling (cf.
Isaias 66:5).
Though they have rejected the Great
Prophet, the Jews still think that the promises made to Abraham are
theirs, and that all the lands promised to the ancient Israelites are
theirs by right, and will be theirs in fact. This means that no one else
who occupies these lands, be they Palestinians, Lebanese, or whatever,
have any rights, and that they can be dispossessed of the lands they
have occupied for millennia. The ancient Israelites, whose heirs they
imagine themselves to be, were commanded by God to exterminate the
Philistines, were they not? And who are the descendants of the
Philistines? Why, the Palestinians and the Lebanese, of course! Their
rights can be ignored with impunity.
Then there are those of the
Christian Fundamentalist Right in the Unites States, the Christian
Zionists, who support Israeli claims, egged on by such false prophets as
Jerry Falwell, Hal Lindsey, Jack Van Impe, and John Hagee. Thousands of
evangelical Christians recently arrived from all 50 states in
Washington, where they have enormous political influence, for the first
annual summit of Christians United for Israel, Hagee being the main organizer.
"For the first time in the history of Christianity in America," Hagee
said, "Christians will go to the Hill to support Israel as Christians."
They will urge the US government "not to restrain Israel in any way in
the pursuit of Hamas and Hezbollah… We want our Congress to make sure
that not one dime of American money goes to support Hamas and Hezbollah
or the enemies of Israel."
Then Hagee declares: "When
they see what's going on in the Middle East, a whole range of enemies
arrayed against God's people, they see God's word being played out on
their television sets. They see Israel triumphing over its enemies as
proof that God's promises remain"
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/5193092.stm).
It is as if Jesus Christ never came
and established a New Covenant in His Blood, and founded the Holy
Catholic Church. God's promises were fulfilled in Jesus Christ and in
those who follow Him. Hagee, and those like him, have an Old Testament
theological viewpoint, and have betrayed Jesus Christ, in Whom the
Scriptures are fulfilled. Who are God's people but those who have
believed in His word and obey His commands, whether Jews or not?
According to St. Paul, "There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither
slave nor freeman; there is neither male nor female. For you are all
one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are the offspring
of Abraham, heirs according to promise" (Galatians 3:28,29).
The Jews are children of Abraham according
to the flesh only, natural descendants. Some of them, that is. Are those
whom we call Jews today the descendants of the Jews who were dispersed
among the nations after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70
A.D., or even of the ten tribes that were carried off into captivity by
the ancient Assyrians in 721 B.C.? On the contrary, most Jews
today are the so-called Ashkenazi Jews, descended from the ancient
Khazars of Eastern Europe. Despite their prominence in the Jewish
community they do not have Jewish blood, but were converted to Judaism
in the ninth century. They do not have Jewish blood, and they follow the
modern Jewish Talmudic religion. How does that make them "God's
people," and the "inheritors of the promises"?
On May 14, 1948, on the day in which the
British Mandate over Palestine expired, the Jewish People's Council
gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum and declared the establishment of the
State of Israel. The new state was recognized that night by the United
States, and three days later by the USSR. The Vatican, out of concern
for the safety of the Holy Places and the rights of the Palestinians,
many of whom are Catholic, did not recognize the modern state of Israel
until John Paul II, fervently pro-Jewish, gave it official Vatican
recognition on April 20, 1984.
Contrary to what the Jewish Zionists
expect, they will not reign as masters of the world from Jerusalem. The
servile nations will not come to Mount Zion bearing gifts. Pray for the
Jews! They will be all but exterminated except for the remnant who will
turn to Jesus Christ and be saved.
And contrary to what the Christian Zionists
expect, the Temple will not be rebuilt, and 144,000 Jews will not be
converted to reign with Jesus Christ from the Temple in Jerusalem for a
thousand years. (Father Louis Campbell, "And I Saw No Temple Therein".)
This explication of truth by the wonderful pastor of Saint Jude Shrine in Stafford, Texas, would be considered an example of "anti-Judaism" by the likes of Kurt Koch and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. It is, of course, nothing of the sort:
As I was not able to bring out this
book when it was originally written, it has been laid aside for years.
In the meantime, the need for setting forth the full doctrine of the
Kingship of Christ has been forcibly brought home to me by the confusion
created in minds owing to the use of the term “Anti-Semitism.” The
Hitlerite naturalistic or anti-supernatural régime in Germany gave to
the world the odious spectacle of a display of Anti-Semitism, that is,
of hatred of the Jewish Nation. Yet all the propaganda about that
display of Anti-Semitism should not have made Catholics forget the
existence of age-long Jewish Naturalism or Anti-Supernaturalism.
Forgetfulness of the disorder of Jewish Naturalistic opposition to
Christ the King is keeping Catholics blind to the danger that is arising
from the clever extension of the term “Anti-Semitism,” with all its
war-connotation in the minds of the unthinking, to include any form of
opposition to the Jewish Nation’s naturalistic aims. For the leaders of
the Jewish Nation, to stand for the rights of Christ the King is
logically to be “anti-Semitic.”
In March, 1917, Pope Benedict XV wrote to the Archbishop of Tours: “In
the midst of the present upheavals, it is important to repeat to men
that by her divine institution the Catholic Church is the only ark of
salvation for the human race . . . . Accordingly, it is more seasonable
than ever to teach . . . that the truth which liberates, not only
individuals, but societies, is supernatural truth in all its fulness and
in all its purity, without attenuation, diminution or compromise: in a
word, exactly as Our Lord Jesus Christ delivered it to the world.”
These sublime words of the Vicar of Christ have nerved me to do all in
my power to set forth the opposition of every form of Naturalism,
including Jewish Naturalism, to the supernatural Reign of Christ the
King. In addition, for over twenty years I have been offering the Holy
Sacrifice of the Mass every year, on the Feasts of the Resurrection,
Corpus Christi, SS. Peter and Paul and the Assumption of Our Blessed
Mother, for the acceptance by the Jewish Nation of the Divine Plan for
order. Thus I have been striving to follow the example of our Divine
Master. Blessed Pius X insists that “though Jesus was kind to those who
had gone astray, and to sinners, He did not respect their erroneous
convictions, however sincere they appeared to be.”the need of combining
firmness in the proclamation of the integral truth with loving charity
towards those in error is insisted on, even more emphatically, by Pope
Pius XI: “Comprehending and merciful charity towards the erring,” he
writes, “and even towards the contemptuous, does not mean and can not
mean that you renounce in any way the proclaiming of, the insisting on,
and the courageous defence of the truth and its free and unhindered
application to the realities about you. The first and obvious duty the
priest owes to the world about him is service to the truth, the whole
truth, the unmasking and refutation of error in whatever form or
disguise it conceals itself.”
A day will come when the Jewish Nation
will cease to oppose order and will turn in sorrow and repentance to Him
Whom they rejected before Pilate. That will be a glorious triumph for
the Immaculate Heart of Our Blessed Mother. Until that day
dawns, however, their naturalistic opposition to the True Supernatural
Order of the world must be exposed and combated. (Father Denis Fahey, Foreword, The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation.)
Moreover, the following dogmatic proclamation issued by the Council of Florence on February 4, 1442, and promulgated by Pope Eugene IV would have had to be wrong for the "new teaching" of conciliarism about the Jews to be correct, yet again blasphemous assertion that is "justified" by the philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned "hermeneutic of continuity:"
It [the Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord's coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors. Therefore, it commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism, to cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation. Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people, but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently, but so ,that, when danger of death is imminent, they be baptized in the form of the Church, early without delay, even by a layman or woman, if a priest should be lacking, just as is contained more fully in the decree of the Armenians. . . .
It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, February 4, 1442.)
The Modernists get around all of this by making advertence, as Kurt "Cardinal" Koch did five days ago, to the "hermeneutic of continuity" and its principal methodological tool, the "historical-critical method," which has made possible a "re-thinking" of the very Person of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as a faithful Jew and thus of the importance of this fact for what is believed to be the Catholic Church's "relationship" with the Talmudists of today.
Let us turn once again to Pope Saint Pius X's description of this insane merchants of madness:
The Modernists completely invert the parts, and of them may be applied
the words which another of Our predecessors Gregory IX, addressed to
some theologians of his time: "Some among you, puffed up like
bladders with the spirit of vanity strive by profane novelties to cross
the boundaries fixed by the Fathers, twisting the meaning of the sacred
text...to the philosophical teaching of the rationalists, not for the
profit of their hearer but to make a show of science...these men, led
away by various and strange doctrines, turn the head into the tail and
force the queen to serve the handmaid." (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)
We did not know until Nostra Aetate, 28, 1965, that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was a faithful Jew?
We did not know until Nostra Aetate that the crimes of the Nazi regime and the rotten fruit of Scriptural exegetes who made use of the historical-critical method made necessary a "new relationship" with the "faith of Israel"?
The truth is, of course, that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday ended the Old Covenant of the Jews. This was signified by the tearing into two of the curtain in the Temple in Jerusalem. In His ineffable mercy, Our Lord gave the Jews another thirty-six years to respond to the preaching of the Gospel before He pronounced a public ratification of the supersession of the Old Covenant with His New and Eternal Testament. That public ratification took the form of the destruction of the Temple and of Jerusalem itself.
As noted earlier in this commentary, there is no "new" relationship with the dead faith of a false religion other than to seek the conversion of its adherents.
Well, for the sake of my own waning sanity and the need for some sleep, here is but one additional excerpt from Kurt Koch's heapin', helpin' servin' of conciliar-fried duplicity before part one of this commentary comes to an end.
After several passages praising the extolling of the "reception" of Nostra Aetate by Talmudists, Kurt "Cardinal" Koch began what could be termed an effort to deal with some more "theological questions" concerning the contemporary status of Judaism, once again showing himself to be of one mind and of one heart with his boss, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI:
In the series of Vatican documents reference must finally also be made
to that voluminous text which was published by the Pontifical Bible
Commission on 24 May 2001 and which deals explicitly with
Jewish–Catholic dialogue: “The Jewish People and their Sacred Scripture
in the Christian Bible”. This involves the exegetically and
theologically most weighty document of the Jewish–Catholic conversation
and represents a rich treasure–trove of common topics which have their
basis in the scriptures of Judaism and Christianity. The Sacred
Scripture of the Jewish people is considered as “the fundamental
component of the Christian bible”, the fundamental themes of the
Scripture of the Jewish people and their adoption in the faith in Christ
are discussed, and the manner in which Jews are represented in the New
Testament is illuminated in detail. In the Foreword the Prefect of the
Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith at that time, Cardinal Josef
Ratzinger, advocates 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
Jewish exegesis practised for more than 2000 years; in return Christians
may hope that Jews can profit from Christian exegetical research.” (Swiss Apostate Apes Ratzinger by Denying Catholic Teaching About the Jews.)
Here is what Ratzinger/Benedict wrote in the document cited above by his faithful appointee, Kurt Koch, and in his own book, God and the World:
In its work, the Biblical Commission could not
ignore the contemporary context, where the shock of the Shoah has put
the whole question under a new light. Two main problems are posed: Can
Christians, after all that has happened, still claim in good conscience
to be the legitimate heirs of Israel's Bible? Have they the right to
propose a Christian interpretation of this Bible, or should they not
instead, respectfully and humbly, renounce any claim that, in the light
of what has happened, must look like a usurpation? The second question
follows from the first: In its presentation of the Jews and the Jewish
people, has not the New Testament itself contributed to creating a
hostility towards the Jewish people that provided a support for the
ideology of those who wished to destroy Israel? The Commission set about
addressing those two questions. It is clear that a Christian rejection
of the Old Testament would not only put an end to Christianity itself as
indicated above, but, in addition, would prevent the fostering of
positive relations between Christians and Jews, precisely because they
would lack common ground. In the light of what has happened,
what ought to emerge now is a new respect for the Jewish interpretation
of the Old Testament. On this subject, the Document says two things.
First it declares that “the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible
one, in continuity with the Jewish Scriptures of the Second Temple
period, a reading analogous to the Christian reading, which developed in
parallel fashion” (no. 22). It adds that Christians can learn a great
deal from a Jewish exegesis practised for more than 2000 years; in
return, Christians may hope that Jews can profit from Christian
exegetical research (ibid.). I think this analysis will prove useful for
the pursuit of Judeo-Christian dialogue, as well as for the interior
formation of Christian consciousness. (Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, Preface to The Jewish People and Their Scriptures in the Christian Bible.)
“It
is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not
directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ.
And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is
not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity
of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and
the figure of Jesus. Jesus brings a new meaning to these texts – yet
it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and
significance. There are perfectly good reasons, then, for
denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that
is not what he said. And there are also good reasons for referring it to him – that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.” (Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, God and the World, p. 209.)
Kurt Koch is merely propagating only what his boss believes and has taught, both as Father Joseph Ratzinger, Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger and "Benedict XVI." Unfortunately for both of them, they are outside of the pale of the Catholic Church and are thus just as much enemies of Christ the King as the Talmudists themselves:
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. (Saint John Chrysostom, Fourth Century, A.D., Saint John Chrysostom: Eight Homilies Against the Jews.)
It's night and day, ladies and gentlemen. Catholicism is not conciliarism.
Who are the biggest anti-Semites on the face of this earth?
The conciliarists?
Why?
It's simple.
The conciliarists reaffirm all non-Catholics, including Talmudists, in their false religions, leaving them exposed as a result to eternal perdition. No one "loves" another human being if he does anything, whether by commission or by omission, that impedes the salvation of his immortal soul.
Behold the true anti-Semites: men such as Kurt Koch and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.
God hates all false religions. He loathes them. He wants them eradicated from the face of this earth as their adherents are converted to the true Faith. The Catholic Church, ever faithful to Him as she is guided by Him infallibly, must hate what he hates: sin and error and falsehood. This is not an option for a Catholic. We must hate sin in our own lives. We must seek to root it out as we cooperate with the graces won for us by Our Lord on the wood of the Holy Cross that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, the Mediatrix of All Graces. We must hate the spread of sin in the world under cover of the civil law and in the midst of popular culture. We must make no conscious compromise with error or falsehood. We must be earnest about planting seeds for the conversion of all non-Catholics to the true Faith, outside of which there is no salvation and without with there can be no true social order.
This is, of course, a chastisement for our sins, for our own infidelities, for our own lukewarmness, for our own lack of steadfastness in prayer, especially to the Mother of God, who was not mentioned at all by Ratzinger/Benedict yesterday in his address to the Jews. We need to pray many Rosaries of reparation now that these additional offenses have been given to God the false "pontiff." We need, therefore, to make much reparation for these sins as we seek always to make reparation for our own sins as we entrust to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary the need of the present moment.
We must, of course, continue to remember that this is the time that God has appointed from all eternity for us to be alive. He has work for us to do. Let us do this work with courage and valor as we never count the cost of being humiliated for the sake of defending the integrity of Faith, as we never cease our prayers for the conversion of all people, including those who adhere to the Talmud and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and his fellow conciliarists, to the true Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.
Part two of this commentary will focus on that part of "Cardinal" Koch's address dealing with Deicide and his absurd explanation of how Jews are saved even though they deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
