Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us

December 11, 2012


Propagating Only What His Boss Believes and Teaches

Part Two

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Kurt "Cardinal" Koch's lengthy address, delivered at the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas, The Angelicum, on Wednesday, December 5, 2012, discussing the current state of relations between his counterfeit church of conciliarism and adherents of Talmudism that was the subject of yesterday's commentary, Propagating Only What His Boss Believes and Teaches, part one, including a review of some of the "accomplishments" brought about by over forty years of "dialogue" between members of these two false religions.

Here are the "accomplishments" that the Swiss Apostate, who only propagates what his German Boss, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, believes and teaches:

The IJCIC was able to commence its work in 1970, and organised already one year later the first joint conference in Paris. The conferences which have been conducted regularly since then are the expression of the so–called International Catholic–Jewish Liaison Committee (ILC), and they shape the collaboration between the IJCIC and the Holy See’s Commission. In February of 2011 at the 21st Conference of the ILC we were able to look back with gratitude on 40 years of institutional dialogue and celebrate this jubilee once more in Paris. Much has developed over the past 40 years: confrontation has turned into successful collaboration, the previous conflict potential has become positive conflict management, and the co–existence of the past has been replaced by a load–bearing friendship. The bonds of friendship forged in the meantime have proved to be stable, so that it has become possible to tackle even controversial subjects together without the danger of permanent damage being done to the dialogue. This was all the more necessary because over the past decades the dialogue had not always been free of tensions. We need only recall the crises provoked in the eighties by the so–called “Waldheim affair” or the planned “Carmel in Auschwitz”. In most recent times one thinks of the so–called “Williamson affair” or also the very divergent opinions regarding a beatification of Pope Pius XII, whereby the attentive observer can hardly avoid the conclusion that on the part of the Jews the verdicts on this Pope have changed from the original profound gratitude to profound anxiety only since the drama by Hochhuth. In general however one can observe with appreciation that in Jewish–Catholic dialogue since the turn of the millennium above all, intensive attempts have been made to deal with any arising differences of opinion and conflicts openly and with a positive goal in mind, so that in this way the mutual relations have become stronger and the proverbial wisdom has been confirmed that when a torn bond is joined together again, the distance between the two ends becomes shorter. (Swiss Apostate Apes Ratzinger by Denying Catholic Teaching About the Jews.)


At almost every turn, noting a few exceptions here and there, the lords of conciliarism have sought to appease the Talmudists, who have laid claim to the mantle of the Biblical Judaism that ended with the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. by the pagan Romans, who had been raised up by God as the human instruments by which those who had called down upon themselves and their descendants the Most Precious Blood of the Divine Redeemer would be chastised as a public pronouncement upon the invalidity of their false religion could be made manifest.

Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II was a great appeaser of the contemporary enemies of the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His Social Kingship over men and their nations.

Wojtyla/John Paul II went so far as to remove the very Sign of our salvation, the Sign of the Cross, at various times and in various places where adherents of the Talmud might have or were in fact offended.

The false "pontiff" removed his pectoral cross (remember, he was a true bishop appointed by our last true pope thus far, Pope Pius XII on July 4, 1958, and consecrated on the Feast of Saint Wenceslaus, September 28, 1958, just eleven days before Pope Pius XII's death) on April 7, 1994, at the Paul VI Audience Hall as he hosted a concert in honor of the Talmudic victims of the Nazi regime.

He did more than that, however: he removed a crucifix from the Paul VI Audience Hall. This has nothing to do with fidelity to the Christ King, who won our salvation for us on the wood of the Holy Cross. That concert was "the first time the Chief Rabbi of Rome was invited to co-officiate at a public function in the Vatican, the first time a Jewish cantor sang at the Vatican, and the first time the Vatican choir sang a Hebrew text in performance" (The Vatican, the Holocaust, and the Jews: 1945-2000, a Talmudic source for this; see also: CHRONICLE - The New York Times and YOM HASHOAH, another Talmudic source for the "concert").

Wojtyla/John Paul II also intervened personally in 1998 when Talmudists expressed their opposition to a large cross that had been erected by Carmelite sisters in Poland near the Auschwitz concentration camp and death center where Father Maximilian Kolbe, the great apostle of the City of Mary Immaculate, was put to death. The Polish "pope" requested that the Carmelite nuns remove the large cross because the Talmudists were "offended" by it. So what? Catholics are never afraid to lift high the standard of the Holy Cross.

There was one time, however, when Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, whose particular nature as a Pole inclined him to stubbornness, caused a bit of "controversy" with his Talmudic "partners in dialogue" as received Austrian President and former United Nations Secretary General Kurt Waldheim, who had been accused of "war crimes" when serving in the German army during World War II, in a solemn state ceremony in the Apostolic Palace on June 26, 1987. Kurt "Cardinal" Koch mentioned this "controversy" by way of demonstrating the "strength" of the ties that had been forged between members of the two false religions since they first began to meet in 1970. A report in The New York Times demonstrates that the Talmudic protests at the time were most vigorous:

Pope John Paul II received Kurt Waldheim today as an honored state visitor to the Vatican. He praised the Austrian President for a lifetime of activities on behalf of peace but made no mention of the controversy surrounding his service as a German Army officer in World War II.

The Pope's welcome to Mr. Waldheim, which provoked widespread protests by Jewish organizations, broke the international isolation that the Austrian had encountered since his election last June. Mr. Waldheim, a former United Nations Secretary General, was elected President a few months after documents were made public implicating him in the Nazi deportation of Greek Jews to death camps and in brutal reprisals against Yugoslav Partisans. He has denied the allegations. U.S. Envoy Absent

Ambassadors from the United States, Italy and a few other Western nations were absent from a brief ceremony today at which Mr. Waldheim was presented to the diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See, and in some cases they were registering disapproval by staying away.

The visit met with harsh words and public protest in the United States. In Washington, a crowd torn between anger and grief held a vigil in front of the Vatican mission.

Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir of Israel today described the visit as ''an outrageous act,'' saying, ''It could be interpreted as a justification for crimes of which Waldheim is accused,'' according to news reports from Israel.

After formally greeting Mr. Waldheim and his entourage, the Pope said to his guest: ''All of your activity in the course of an international life as a diplomat and foreign minister of your country and also in your difficult work, full of responsibility, at the United Nations was always devoted to securing peace among people.''

This experience, the Pope said, ''can now be put to the service'' of Mr. Waldheim's work as ''the maximum representative of the Austrian people.''

The rest of John Paul's speech to Mr. Waldheim focused on Austria's merits as a nation, hailing its defense of human rights and freedom, while also highlighting its historical importance to the Roman Catholic Church. Mr. Waldheim, who is a Catholic, replied by praising John Paul as ''the conscience of the world.''

In his public remarks, which followed a 35-minute private meeting, the Pope made no mention, even indirectly, of Mr. Waldheim's wartime experiences.

Near the edge of St. Peter's Square, a group of about 100 protesters representing Italian leftist organizations and Jewish groups demonstrated during Mr. Waldheim's visit. A man whose arm bore the tatooed number of a concentration camp inmate held up a small gallows with a sign that read, ''Waldheim offered the noose - the Pope offers the cross.''

Rabbi Avi Weiss of the Bronx, who came to Rome to protest the visit, led a prayer after declaring, ''The Vatican desecrates the souls of the six million Jews killed by the Nazis, so we will sanctify their souls by praying.''

In several public statements, Vatican spokesmen have declared that the Pope was welcoming Mr. Waldheim as the elected representative of the Austrian people and not as an individual. The Vatican has also expressed surprise at the criticism provoked by the Pope's decision to receive Mr. Waldheim, who had repeatedly requested the audience.

A senior Vatican official said today that the State Department refused to provide the Holy See with documentation relating to the charges against Mr. Waldheim. The official said that before deciding to receive Mr. Waldheim, the Holy See had asked to see the documents, not yet made public, that formed the basis of a Justice Department decision in April to put Mr. Waldheim on a list of people barred from entering the United States because there is proof they may have ''participated in activities amounting to persecution.''

Frank Shakespeare, the United States Ambassador to the Holy See, was out of town today, according to an embassy spokesman. The United States was represented at the Vatican ceremony by Frank Lattanzi, the acting chief of mission.

An American diplomat said the Ambassador's absence was meant ''to convey a message without insulting the Vatican.'' The Dutch and Italian Ambassadors were also absent, apparently under similar circumstances. In several other cases it was not clear whether absent diplomats had intended to boycott the event. (JOHN PAUL HOLDS WALDHEIM MEETING.)

What is truly ironic about The "Waldheim Affair," as it was termed by Kurt Koch six days ago now, as anomalous as it was in the 9,666 days of Wojtyla/John Paul II's directorship of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, is that Talmudists were vocal in their opposition to Waldheim's reception in the Apostolic Palace twenty-five years ago and to the "papal" knighthood he received seven years later while most Catholics were completely silent as a Talmudic rabbi, Leon Klenicki, who supported and enabled the American genocide that has been imposed upon the innocent preborn, was "knighted" by the same "John Paul II." Even the accusation of being a Nazi war criminal is enough to condemn a man in the eyes of the Talmudists and their American enablers, yes, even in the "decent" administration of President Ronald Wilson Reagan and Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush while those who support the killing of babies and promote special rights for those engaged in perverse sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments just people who have a "difference opinion" on a "difficult issue" about which people of "good will" can disagree legitimately.

As noted above, Wojtyla/John Paul II did fold in the manner of Robert Gigante's ("Bob Grant") cheap camera in the face of Talmudic protests against the symbol of the Divine Redeemer's triumph over sin and death that they hate so much, the Holy Cross, on the grounds of the Carmelite convent near Auschwitz, Poland.

In like manner, of course, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and his band of fellow apostates in the counterfeit church of conciliarism fell all over themselves to demonstrate how much they despised Bishop Richard Richard Williamson of the Society of Saint Pius X for the remarks that he made in an interview that aired on Swedish television on Wednesday, January 21, 2009, about the nature and extent of the crimes committed by agents of Adolf Hitler's Third Reich (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). Various conciliar officials, including Koch, Gerhard Ludwig Muller and his chief deputy Joseph Augustine Di Noia, O.P., have at various times made in the past few months made demand that the Society of Saint Pius X divest itself of any vestiges of what they call "anti-Semitism" and anti-Judaism (Anti-Catholicism Brought To You In Scarlet, Deft? Daft Is More Like It, part two, Deft? Daft Is More Like It, part three, Does The Defense of Truth Matter To You? and Contrast The Outrage, part one).

Although there have been some in contemporary Jewish circles who have come to the defense of Pope Pius XII's actions during World War II, most prominent Talmudists have, as Kurt Koch noted by describing the "bumps in the road" in conciliar-Talmudic relations, been outspoken in their demands against the conciliar "beatification" of our last true pope, who, sadly enough, appointed almost all of the key players who planned and orchestrated the conciliar revolution against the Catholic Faith (see For Fear of the Jews, Fearing Not to Offend God, Appeasers Never Learn, There Can Be No Doubt, Ever Pandering to the Enemies of the Faith and, among others, Answering to the Enemies of Christ the King; for a review of the true wartime record of Pope Pius XII, please see The Truth About Pope Pius XII.)

Those "bumps in the road" of conciliar-Talmudic relations in the past forty-two years, however, do not obscure, Kurt Koch contended six days ago,t he importance of "discovering" that "separating Judaism from Christianity” would result in a loss of its universality. No, I am not making any of this up (do you think that I want to be up at 11:00 p.m. after getting only a few hours of sleep last night writing the first part of this commentary?):


Over the past decades both the “dialogue ad extra” and the “dialogue ad intra” have led with increasing clarity to the awareness that Christians and Jews are dependent on one another and the dialogue between the two is as far as theology is concerned not a matter of choice but of duty. Jews and Christians are precisely in their difference the one people of God who can enrich one another in mutual friendship. I do not have the right to judge what Judaism may gain from this dialogue for its own purposes. I can only join Cardinal Walter Kasper in expressing the wish that it recognise that “separating Judaism from Christianity” would mean “robbing it of its universality”, which was already promised to Abraham. For the Christian church however it is certainly true that without Judaism it is in danger of losing its location with salvation history and in the end declining into an unhistorical Gnosis. (Swiss Apostate Apes Ratzinger by Denying Catholic Teaching About the Jews.)


"Dialogue" is only supposed to help "Judaism" for "its own purposes"? What are its purposes? To promote falsehoods that are hideous in the sight of the true God of Divine Revelation. It has no "mission" from God. It is a dead religion. Gone. Finished.

What is this business about the "Christian church"? There is only one such church, the Catholic Church. None other.

The "Christian church" would being "danger of losing its location with salvation history and in the end" decline into an "unhistorical Gnosis" without Judaism?

Excuse me, Herr Koch, the Catholic Church has never been in danger of losing anything contained in the Deposit of Faith, including the Old Testament, as It is safeguarded eternally by the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost. Your assertion therefore is both blasphemous as well a being completely absurd as a false religion upon which God Himself has pronounced publicly has no role to play in the Catholic Faith whatsoever. While Catholics are called to study the Old Testament, they do so as Catholics, not in light of a Talmudic interpretation, which is what Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI believes is a "possible one," and Holy Mother Church can never pay any respect to false liturgical rites that are of the devil, not of God, rites that mock the Person of the Divine Redeemer and His Redemptive Act on the wood of the Holy Cross.

What did I write in yesterday's commentary.

Yes, yes. I remember now.




All around Modernist nincompoops and scalawags.

It's a late hour. However, I remembered this one. Good.

Let us proceed.

After reviewing and praising Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's long record of service to the cause of conciliar-Talmudic relations, including his visit to the synagogue of Rome on April 13, 1986 (see Beatifying" Yet Another Conciliar Revolutionary), Kurt "Cardinal" Koch then directed his accolades in the direction of the current Judaizer-in-Chief of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, placing special emphasis on that supposedly "unofficial" book of his, Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection:


Joseph Ratzinger’s verdict on the trial of Jesus in his book on Jesus of Nazareth for example, which has been acknowledged with particular gratitude on the part of the Jews, namely that the biblical report of the trial of Jesus cannot serve as the basis for any assertion of collective Jewish guilt, was already clearly perceived by the theologian Ratzinger: “Jesus’ blood raises no call for retaliation but calls all to reconciliation. It has become as the letter to the Hebrews shows, itself the permanent Day of Atonement of God.”Against the background of these theological convictions it cannot surprise us that Pope Benedict XVI carries on and progresses the conciliatory work of his predecessor with regard to Jewish–Catholic conversation. He not only addressed the first letter in his pontificate to the Chief Rabbi in Rome but also gave an assurance at his first encounter with a Jewish delegation on 9 June 2005 that the church was moving firmly on the fundamental principles of “Nostra aetate” and he intended to continue the dialogue in the footsteps of his predecessors. In reviewing the seven years of his pontificate we find that he has in this short space of time taken all those steps which Pope John Paul took in his 27–year pontificate: Pope Benedict XVI visited the former concentration camp Auschwitz–Birkenau on 28 May 2006; during his visit to Israel in May 2009 he too stood before the Wailing Wall, he met with the Chief Rabbinate of Jerusalem and prayed for the victims of the Shoah in Yad Vashem; and on 17 January 2010 he was warmly received by the Jewish community in Rome in their synagogue. His first visit to a synagogue was of course made already on 19 August 2005 in Cologne on the occasion of World Youth Day, and on 18 April 2008 he visited the Park East Synagogue in New York. So we can claim with gratitude that no other Pope in history has visited as many synagogues as Benedict XVI. (Swiss Apostate Apes Ratzinger by Denying Catholic Teaching About the Jews.)

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's reading of the "biblical report" of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's trial is false. It is even opposed to the very plain words of the Gospels and of the clear teaching of the Fathers of the Church:


And the whole people answering, said: His blood be upon us and our children (Matthew 27: 25).

(5) It is true that today's feast of the martyrs invites me to recount the conflicts they underwent. If I neglect this topic, if I strip and get ready to enter the arena against the Jews, let no one accuse me of choosing the wrong time for my discourse. The martyrs would find a discourse against the Jews more desirable than any panegyric of mine, since I could never make them more illustrious than they are.

(6) What need could they have of my tongue? Their own struggles surpass our mortal nature. The prizes they won go beyond our powers and understanding. They laughed at the life lived on earth;  they trampled underfoot the punishment of the rack; they scorned death and took wing to heaven; they escaped from the storms of temporal things  and sailed into a calm harbor; they brought with them no gold or silver or expensive garments; they carried along no treasure which could be plundered, but the riches of patience, courage, and love. Now they belong to Paul's choral band while they still await their crowns, but they find delight in the expectation of their crowns, because they have escaped henceforth the uncertainty of the future.

(7) What need could they have of any words of mine? Therefore, they will find this topic more desirable than any panegyric of mine which, as I said before, will bring no increase to their personal glory. But it could be that they will derive great pleasure from my conflict with the Jews; they might well listen most intently to a discourse given for God's glory. For the martyrs have a special hatred for the Jews since the Jews crucified him for whom they have a special love. The Jews said: "His blood be on us and on our children" the martyrs poured out their own blood for him whom the Jews had slain. So the martyrs would be glad to hear this discourse. (Saint John Chrysostom, Homily Six Against the Jews.)

The following analysis of the conciliarists' rejection of the charge of Decide against the Jews leaves no doubt at all concerning their having expelled themselves outside of the pale of the Catholic Church:

What spoils this beautiful creation of Vatican II is the Cross. The inopportune, embarrassing Cross of Christ, scandal to the Jews! The Council did its best to annul the crucifixion of Jesus. In its eagerness for Judaic friendship, it tried to declare Judaism innocent of any crime. It forbade to say that the Jews were guilty of deicide. The 1964 definitive text of the Nostra aetate did not use this word. However, the fact remains that because of the hypostatic union, the One who was crucified in His human nature is a Divine Person. Therefore, the deicide was committed.

So it was necessary for the Council to say that the Jews did not commit this crime. To reach this goal, the Council took three steps: It stated, first, that only some Jews were at Golgotha; second, that they were not perfectly conscious of what was happening; third, that it is our sins, the sins of all men and not the Jews which caused the death of Christ. This is an incredible falsification!

Here is what the Council said: “Even though the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ, nonetheless, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews of that time without distinction, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as reprobates or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures.” (Nostra aetate, 4)

Here is what John Paul II said: “It is not possible to attribute to the Jews as a people any hereditary or collective guilt for what happened in the passion of Jesus. … neither without distinction to the Jews of that time nor to today’s Jews.”

It is obvious that it is not possible to attribute guilt to all Jews without distinction, but why didn’t the Council and the Pope make the necessary distinctions and then pointed out which Jews are guilty? …

For the Council and John Paul II, however, today’s Jews are guilty of nothing. We will see that this doctrine cannot be sustained.

Sacred Scripture affirms quite clearly the hardness of all those people who remained in solidarity with the authorities who condemned Jesus and the mob who applauded His death. Far from repenting, the Jews of that time - and all those Jews who did not convert - have upheld that episode insofar as they have knowledge of it. This is another distinction that the Council and John Paul II did not make. …

Sacred Scripture tells us:

“Therefore, when the chief priests and officers saw Him, they cried out, saying, crucify Him, crucify Him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye Him, and crucify Him: for I find no fault in Him. The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law He ought to die, because He made himself the Son of God.” (Jn 19: 6-7).

“And when they had bound Him, they led Him away, and delivered Him to Pontius Pilate the governor. Then Judas, which had betrayed Him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

“And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. wherefore that field was called, the field of blood, unto this day.

“Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; and gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me.

“And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked Him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest it. And when He was accused of the chief priests and elders, He answered nothing. Then said Pilate unto Him, Hearest Thou not how many things they witness against Thee? And He answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly.

“Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would. And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas. Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ? For he knew that for envy they had delivered him. When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of Him.

“But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus. The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas. Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let Him be crucified. And the governor said, Why, what evil hath He done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let Him be crucified.

“When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. Then he released Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.” (Mt 27: 2-26; see also Luke 22: 20-25; John 19: 14-16; Act 2: 22-23, 36)

Ignorance does not excuse the Jews from the guilt of deicide. This objection was clearly answered by St. Thomas 700 years ago (Summa theologiae, III, q. 47, a. 5, ad 3).

The Jews committed deicide, but which Jews and in what proportion? To answer this one must look at the relationship of the Jewish people with the condemnation of Jesus, and their presence at that scene. As far as presence is concerned, the responsibility lies with the high priests as the moral instigators of the crime and the people who followed the iniquity of their leaders (Jn 18:35; 19:15; Mt 27:25)

These Scripture texts show not only the adhesion of the people of Israel who were present at the Passion calling for Christ’s crucifixion to fall on their heads, but also upon those in solidarity with them who were not there and those to come after those events.

Between them there is a moral continuity - voluntarily assumed - whose point of union is the Law of Moses [interpreted according to the Talmud]: “We have a law, and by our law He ought to die.” …

To escape this accusation, the Jews must renounce that interpretation of the Law and repudiate their fathers’ condemnation of Jesus. All the Jews who still follow that law by virtue of which Christ was condemned as a blasphemer, are in some way voluntary participants in the deicide, although the proportion of guilt varies according to each one’s knowledge and consent. …

Just as the blessing and glory are due the Jewish people who continued to be faithful to the promise and became Catholics, so the curse and condemnation apply to those who continued to profess the perfidy of their fathers. …

The Council, however, concluded: “The Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. “ (NA, 4)

The Church has always taught that every man is called to convert and enter her bosom by baptism, so in this sense no one is absolutely cursed or rejected on this earth. But what the Council wrongly suggested is that official Judaism, the Synagogue, which committed the crime of deicide by condemning to death its Messiah and God and persisted in this perfidy through the centuries, should not be the object of reproof and malediction.

This is to confuse the terms and to lie.

Those Jews, who, by their faith in the promise, recognize Christ as Messiah, continue to be heirs of Abraham and the true people of God. But those unfortunate prevaricators who positively and obstinately reject Him, as their fathers did, are not the people of God so long as they continue in their infidelity. Hence they are reprobates and cursed, which does not imply that they will be so forever. (The Deicide and the Council - Main excerpts from article by Fr. Juan Carlos Ceriani, Tradition in Action website.)


Any questions?

The "Second" Vatican Council and the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes" has been and continues to be a Talmudic operation from beginning to end. The conciliar revolutionaries have done little but to falsify practically every single aspect of the Catholic Faith, which is why the conciliar "bishops" are forced to sell church buildings and school buildings as Catholics have been driven out of the ranks of the false conciliar church by the millions in response to false doctrines and false liturgies and a false "sensitivity" to the rights engaged in unspeakable sins of perversion, including of the predators within the ranks of the conciliar clergy.

It was near the conclusion of the address he gave six days ago now that the Swiss version of Walter "Cardinal" Kasper waded into the conciliar-created morass involving the "enduring" nature of the Old Covenant and the contention that Jews can be saved absent their conversion to the true Faith:

The Declaration of the Second Vatican Council on Judaism, that is the fourth Article of “Nostra aetate”, stood, as has surely become clear, in a decidedly theological framework. That is not meant to claim that all theological questions which arise in the relationship of Christianity and Judaism were solved there. They did receive there a promising stimulus, but require further theological reflection. That is also indicated by the fact that this Council document, unlike all other texts of the Second Vatican Council, could not in its notes refer back to preceding doctrinal documents and decisions of previous councils. Of course there had been earlier magisterial texts which focussed on Judaism, but “Nostra aetate” provides the first theological overview of the relationship of the Catholic Church to the Jews. Because it was such a breakthrough, the Council text is not infrequently over–interpreted, and things are read into it which it does not in fact contain. To name an important example: That the covenant that God made with his people Israel persists and is never invalidated – although this confession is true – cannot be read into “Nostra aetate”. This statement was instead first made with full clarity by Pope John Paul II when he said during a meeting with Jewish representatives in Mainz on 17 November 1980 that the Old Covenant had never been revoked by God: “The first dimension of this dialogue, namely the encounter between God’s people of the Old Covenant which has never been revoked by God and that of the New Covenant is at the same time a dialogue within our church, as it were between the first and second book of her bible.” from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom." (Swiss Apostate Apes Ratzinger by Denying Catholic Teaching About the Jews.)

Of course it is the case that the bishops and the periti (experts) who were present at the "Second" Vatican Council "could not in its notes refer back to preceding doctrinal documents and decisions of previous councils" as Nostra Aetate's teaching on the Jews and Judaism is an exercise in apostasy. There is no precedent for it in the history of the Catholic Church, and it is therefore blasphemous as God the Holy Ghost does not contradict Himself.

Pope Pius XII stated the following in Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943, he was protected from erring by the very same Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost:


29.And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area -- He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the house of Israel [30] -the Law and the Gospel were together in force; [31] but on the gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees, [32] fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, [33] establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. [34] "To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom." [35]

30. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, [36] in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; [37] and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head in His Church. "For it was through His triumph on the Cross," according to the teaching of the Angelic and Common Doctor, "that He won power and dominion over the gentiles"; [38] by that same victory He increased the immense treasure of graces, which, as He reigns in glory in heaven, He lavishes continually on His mortal members it was by His blood shed on the Cross that God's anger was averted and that all the heavenly gifts, especially the spiritual graces of the New and Eternal Testament, could then flow from the fountains of our Savior for the salvation of men, of the faithful above all; it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would not have been united to this Mystical Body. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)

What was "taught" by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II on October 17, 1980, in Mainz, Germany, and has been ratified on numerous occasions by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is heresy. The Old Covenant was abolished. It has been buried an its now a bearer of death.

For the likes of John Paul II and Benedict XVI and Kurt Koch to be correct, Pope Leo the Great had to have erred when he taught that "there was effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom." This is impossible.

After ratifying once again the "validity" of that which was obliterated by the Paschal Lamb's Sacrifice of Himself to His Co-Equal and Co-Eternal Father in Spirit and in Truth on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday, Kurt Koch explained how Jews can be saved even though they do not acknowledge belief in Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ:

This statement too has given rise to misunderstandings, for example the implication that if the Jews remain in a valid covenant relationship with God, there must be two different ways of salvation, namely the Jewish path of salvation without Christ and the path of salvation for all other people, which leads through Jesus Christ. As obvious as this answer seems to be at first glance, it is not able to solve satisfactorily at least the highly complex theological question how the Christian belief in the universal salvific significance of Jesus Christ can coherently be conceptually combined with the equally clear conviction of faith in the never–revoked covenant of God with Israel. That the church and Judaism cannot be represented as “two parallel ways to salvation”, but that the church must “witness to Christ as the Redeemer for all” was established already in the second document published by the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews in 1985. The Christian faith stands or falls by the confession that God wants to lead all people to salvation, that he follows this path in Jesus Christ as the universal mediator of salvation, and that there is no “other name under heaven given to the human race by which we are to be saved” (Acts 4:12). The concept of two parallel paths of salvation would in the least call into question or even endanger the fundamental understanding of the Second Vatican Council that Jews and Christians do not belong to two different peoples of God, but that they form one people of God. On the one hand, from the Christian confession there can be only one path to salvation. However, on the other hand, it does not necessarily follow that the Jews are excluded from God’s salvation because they do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah of Israel and the Son of God. Such a claim would find no support in the soteriological understanding of St Paul, who in the Letter to the Romans definitively negates the question he himself has posed, whether God has repudiated his own people: “For the grace and call that God grants are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29). That the Jews are participants in God’s salvation is theologically unquestionable, but how that can be possible without confessing Christ explicitly, is and remains an unfathomable divine mystery. It is therefore no accident that Paul’s soteriological reflections in Romans 9–11 on the irrevocable redemption of Israel against the background of the Christ–mystery culminate in a mysterious doxology: “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How inscrutable are his judgments and how unsearchable his ways” (Rom 11:33). It is likewise no accident that Pope Benedict XVI in the second part of his book on Jesus of Nazareth allows Bernard of Clairvaux to say in reference to the problem confronting us, that for the Jews “a determined point in time has been fixed, which cannot be anticipated”. (Swiss Apostate Apes Ratzinger by Denying Catholic Teaching About the Jews.)


First of all, apart from the utter apostasy of this all, wrapped up as it is in a fog of paradox and confusion, Koch (and, of course, Wojtyla and Ratzinger before him confuses "spiritual Israel" with "carnal Israel." Father Certiani explained this confusion:

  • First, there is the spiritual Israel, the people of God in the Old Testament until the time of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Its mission was to prepare for the coming of the Messiah, in whom it would find its apex of perfection. The only legitimate and exclusive continuation of this Israel and its sacred mission is the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ.

  • Second, there is the carnal Israel which interpreted the promise of God and the notion of the Messiah Himself as a temporal victory, and thus rejected the first coming of Our Lord. This Israel includes, on one hand, the Jewish people who came after Christ and are called with a special preference to be converted and baptized. … On the other hand, there is Talmudic Judaism, the religion of the present day Jews, which rejected the Messiah, committed deicide and persecutes the Church …


The Catholic Church loves the spiritual Israel since she is its heir; she also loves the carnal Israel and calls it to conversion. At the same time, she defends herself against the pretensions, hatred and persecutions of Talmudic Judaism.

The Council wanted to reconcile the Church with Talmudic Judaism at any cost. To reach its goal, it disguised such reconciliation by confusing the spiritual and carnal Israel, that is, it did not differentiate the Jewish people open to conversion from the pharisaic and Talmudic Judaism. It identified the former with the latter, attributing to Talmudic Judaism the spiritual goods of the elect people, the spiritual Israel, which were inherited by the Catholic Church.

Thus the Council supposedly seeked unity with Judaism on a common religious ground, which, however, does not exist because of the apostasy of Judaism. Hence, it denied, covered and condemned everything that opposed this pretended religious common base. (Swiss Apostate Apes Ratzinger by Denying Catholic Teaching About the Jews.)


This is pretty clear.

It is furthermore the case that Kurt Koch (and no, to answer the old question always asked by a man who shares a common last name, albeit pronounced differently, Edward Irving--"How Am I Doin'?--Koch, "No, "Cardinal" Koch, you're not doing so well in the eyes of God, who hates heresy, apostasy, blasphemy an sacrilege") was no more clear in explaining how the Jews are saved without acknowledging belief in Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ than had been Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger twelve years ago now when attempting to explain what appeared to a contradiction in a reiteration of Our Lord as the one Saviour of all mankind in Dominus Iesus, August 6, 2000, and the conciliar "teaching" about the Jews and Judaism (see the appendix below for the then "Cardinal" Ratzinger's equally convoluted approach to this absurd conciliar contention as provided by anti-sedevacantist authors).

For the moment, however, it might be relevant once again to state the teaching of the Catholic Church on this issue:


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.)


"Cardinal" Koch's closing remarks, which took a swipe at "traditionalists" who were anti-Jewish, were preceded by his praising Ratzinger/Benedict's reformulation of the Good Friday Prayer for the Jews, something that was undertaken after Talmudists protested shortly after the issuance of Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007, that the "rehabilitation" of the prayer as found in the modernized version of Immemorial Mass of Tradition that was itself reformulated by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII and then included in the missal he issued in 1962) was unacceptable and would hinder "dialogue" between leaders of the two false religions. As is almost always the case, the conciliarists took the Talmudic concerns seriously, attempting to show "good faith" by doing so. Koch explained this as follows six day ago:

This complexity is also attested by the re–formulation of the Good Friday Prayer for the Jews in the extraordinary form of the Roman rite which was published in February 2008. Although the new Good Friday prayer in the form of a plea to God confesses the universality of salvation in Jesus Christ within an eschatological horizon (“as the fullness of the peoples enters your church”), it has been vigorously criticised on the part of Jews – and of course also of Christians – and misunderstood as a call to explicit mission to the Jews. It is easy to understand that the term ‘mission to the Jews’ is a very delicate and sensitive matter for the Jews because in their eyes it involves the very existence of Israel itself. On the other hand however, this question also proves to be awkward for us Christians too, because for us the universal salvific significance of Jesus Christ and consequently the universal mission of the church are of fundamental significance. The Christian church is naturally obligated to perceive its evangelisation task in respect of the Jews, who believe in the one God, in a different manner from that to the nations. In concrete terms this means that – in contrast to several fundamentalist and evangelical movements – the Catholic Church neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards Jews. In his detailed examination of the question of so–called mission to the Jews Cardinal Karl Lehmann rightly discerned that on closer investigation one finds “as good as no institutional mission to the Jews in Catholic mission history”. “We have an abundant share in other forms of inappropriate attitudes towards the Jews and therefore have no right to elevate ourselves above others. But in respect to a specific and exclusive ‘mission to the Jews’ there should be no false consternation or unjustified self–accusation in this regard.” The in–principle rejection of an institutional mission to the Jews does not on the other hand exclude that Christians bear witness to their faith in Jesus Christ also to Jews, but they should do so in an unassuming and humble manner, particularly in view of the great tragedy of the Shoah. (Swiss Apostate Apes Ratzinger by Denying Catholic Teaching About the Jews.)

In other words, it is all right to be a "good witness" to individual Jews as long as one is "sensitive" to the "great tragedy of the Shoah" for which, of course, Catholics bear zero responsibility and does nothing to annul Our Lord Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's injunction to seek the conversion of all men and all nations to the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation an without which there can be no true social order.

Big sigh.

Huge sigh.

Exhale again noticeably.

There is nothing new in this apostasy and distortion of history.

First, the Catholic Church did undertake a specific "institutional mission" to convert the Jews from the time of Pentecost Sunday to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. by the Romans.

Individual Catholic priests (Saint Vincent Ferrer, O.P., and Fathers Maria-Alphonse and Theodore Ratisbonne, among others) did undertake missions to seek the conversion of Jews to the true Faith.

Second, Catholics have never ceased praying for the conversion of the Jews, realizing that their conversion is desired by the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, Who wants even the carnal Jews of the Talmud to know His tender mercies as they fly unto Him through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary and are fed with His very Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity by the worthy reception of Holy Communion.

Third, Jews do not believe in the "one God" of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity. They worship a false god. The true God of Divine Revelation has pronounced His sentence upon them and their false religion. And the Catholic Church has never taught that the Old Covenant is still in effect or that individual Jews are somehow mysteriously "saved" without belief in Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Finally, Kurt "Cardinal" Koch's efforts to "balance" the Catholic Church's mission to evangelize all men and the conciliar church's false belief that Jews are somehow "saved" in a way that we do not yet understand, which is yet another blasphemous assertion, is nothing new. It was stated seven years ago by the man who still remains as the preacher to the "papal" household, Father Raniero Cantalamessa, O.F.M., Cap.:

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.)


This is all the time that I have, especially at 1:11 a.m. on Tuesday, December 11, 2012, for this apostasy and madness, much of which concerning Ratzinger/Benedict's reformulation of the Good Friday Prayer for the Jews I have covered in several articles in 2008 (An Act That Speaks For Itself, Defending the Truth is Never Any Kind of Game, High Church, Low Church, The Great Charade and Always Defying God; see also Bishop Donald Sanborn's Genuflecting to the Jews.)

No, there is no "daylight" between Kurt Koch and Joseph Ratzinger on the issues the former addressed six days ago now at The Angelicum. Both are apostates. Both are thus enemies of Christ the King and of the souls He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood to redeem.

While we must pray for their conversion to the true Faith before they die and that they will publicly abjure their errors that deceive Catholics and non-Catholics alike, much to the detrimental of their eternal welfare and to the very good of all temporal order, as we work out our salvation in fear and in trembling seeking to make reparation for our own many sins of infidelity that have marked us, no matter how temporarily, as enemies of Christ the King, we must, of course, refuse to have association with men who have expelled themselves from the bosom of Holy Mother Church and thus bow down to the Talmudists at almost every opportunity that presents itself for them to do so.

Echoing the Fathers of the Church and foretelling the solemn words of Pope Leo XIII contained in Paragraph Nine of Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1986, Saint Francis de Sales noted quite plainly that those who fall from the Faith in one thing fall from It in Its entirety:

With reference to its object, faith cannot be greater for some truths than for others. Nor can it be less with regard to the number of truths to be believed. For we must all believe the very same thing, both as to the object of faith as well as to the number of truths. All are equal in this because everyone must believe all the truths of faith--both those which God Himself has directly revealed, as well as those he has revealed through His Church. Thus, I must believe as much as you and you as much as I, and all other Christians similarly. He who does not believe all these mysteries is not Catholic and therefore will never enter Paradise. (Saint Francis de Sales, The Sermons of Saint Francis de Sales for Lent Given in 1622, republished by TAN Books and Publishers for the Visitation Monastery of Frederick, Maryland, in 1987, pp. 34-37.)


So much for the utterly absurd claim that there are a "irreducible minima" of truths by which anyone, no less one of the conciliar "popes," can hold and thus remain a member of the Catholic Church even though he denies or puts into question many others. Every truth of the Faith, including that concerning the Jews and Judaism. It does not get much clearer, does it?

May the Rosaries that we pray every day help to effect the conversion of those who adhere to all false religions, including the Talmud and of its enabling force in the world today, concilairism, as we offer up our prayers and sacrifices and penances and humiliations and mortifications and almsgiving to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

May Our Lady help us to pray for the day when no one on the face of the earth will dare to even think of uttering the blasphemous falsehoods that have come forth from the mouths and issued from the printed words of the likes of Kurt Koch and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, the day when all men and women will be humble sons and daughters of the one, true Church, the Catholic Church, that her Divine Son founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope, exclaiming with one voice and with one heart the words that were uttered by Father Miguel Augustin Pro, S.J., on November 23, 1927, when he was shot and killed by the Masonic revolutionaries in Mexico, the very same words that were uttered by the brave Catholic martyrs during the Spanish Revolution a decade later:

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Pope Saint Damasus I, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints


Appendix A

Material From The Great Facade Concerning "Cardinal" Ratzinger and "Cardinal" Kasper on the Jews during the "reign" of John Paul II

Cardinal Ratzinger himself began backpedaling almost immediately at the September 5 [2000] 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, The Remnant Press, 2002, pp. 369-372.)

In late 2001, the Pontifical Biblical Commission released a book entitled The Jewish People and the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible that confirmed the radical (but non-Magisterial) drift of Rome's position vis-a-vis the Jews. The book argues that the Jews' continued wait for the Messiah is validated and justified by the Old Testament. "The expectancy of the Messiah was in the Old Testament," papal spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls explained, "and if the Old Testament keeps its value, then it keeps that as a value, too. It says you cannot just say all the Jews are wrong and we are right." Asked by reporters whether his statements might be taken to suggest that the Messiah may not in fact have come, Navarro-Valls replied, "It means it would be wrong for a Catholic to wait for the Messiah, but not for a Jew." The latest position of the Vatican apparatus (not be confused with the Church's constant Magisterium) is, in essence, that the Jews are perfectly entitled to live as if Christ has never come. They wait for "their" Messiah and we wait for ours. So much for the objective truth of the matter?

Cardinal Ratzinger put it this way: "The difference consists in the fact that for us he (sic) who will come will have the same traits of the Jesus who has already come." The same traits of that Jesus (is there more than one?)--and only "for us"? Would it make the slightest bit of sense to say that, for us, the head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith has the same traits of that Cardinal Ratzinger who occupies the offices of the CDF. What is to account for this apparent dread aversion to the simple, straightforward declaration that the Messiah for everyone, not just "for us," is Jesus Christ crucified in the flesh, and none other than He?

To say the least, the Cardinal's novel locution obscures the fact that that when Christ returns it will be as clear to the Jews as it is to everyone else in the world that this is the One Whom the Pharisees rejected when He walked amongst His people 2,000 years ago--the God Incarnate,Who said to the Pharisees, "Before Abraham was, I am," and Who sternly admonished them that "you shall not see me henceforth till you say: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord" (Matt. 23:38-39).

Evidently, we are to assume that the Holy Catholic Church was mistaken in the teaching of her traditional Good Friday liturgy. Now we are told that it is suddenly no longer a question of a hardening of the heart or or blindness, but merely a difference of opinion about whether there will be one or two comings of the same Messiah? The Cardinal's implication that the whole question of Jewish conversion can be reduced to the observation that Christ's return will represent His Second Coming for us but only a first coming for the Jews, with no eternal consequences arising from "the difference," dispenses with the entire tradition of the the Church.

The response of the neo-Catholic establishment this time was a stony silence. One can hardly blame them; every Catholic instinct must recoil in revulsion at this most recent (and almost unbelievable) display of cowardice. Jewish commentators delightedly hailed as a marvelous innovation. "This is a total novelty," said Chief Rabbi Joseph Levi of Florence. Rabbi Alberto Piatelli, a professor and Jewish leader in Rome, remarked: "This is something altogether new. . . . It recognizes the value of the Jewish position regarding the wait for the Messiah, changes the whole exegesis of biblical studies, and restores our biblical passages to their original meaning. I was surprised." And so yet another "surprise" is added to the mountain of surprises we have only attempted to sketch in this book. Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Great Facade, The Remnant Press, 2002 , pp. 206-207.)

Thomas A. Droleskey afterword: This is not a novelty. This is apostasy.

Good night--or good morning!

Viva Cristo Rey!



© Copyright 2012, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.