There Can Be No Doubt
Thomas A. Droleskey
For Fear of the Jews was published on this site on December 21, 2007, to defend the late Pope Pius XII, who died fifty years ago tomorrow, October 9, 1958, as his saintly memory was being defamed by various adherents of the blasphemous document called the Talmud in an effort to derail the last true pope's "beatification" by the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Please re-read this article as it contains much contemporaneous evidence refuting the abject lie told today by one Talmudic Jew after another that Pope Pius XII did or said "nothing" during World War II to speak out against the crimes of Adolf Hitler's Third Reich.
For Fear of the Jews is relevant once again as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict and over two hundred fifty of his conciliar "bishops" (some of whom from the Eastern rites are indeed legitimately consecrated bishops) listened as Rabbi Shear-Yashuv Cohen, who was invited by Ratzinger/Benedict to speak to the "synod of bishops" on how a Jew looks at the Bible (as though Catholics do not have two thousand years of experience how those who stubbornly and willfully deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ misinterpret Sacred Scriptures to keep themselves in the business of promoting a false religion that is in the grip of the devil), indirectly defamed the memory of Pope Pius XII once again
The first rabbi ever to address a Synod of Bishops today praised the church’s commitment to dialogue with Jews, but he also issued a reminder of Jewish/Catholic tensions by indirectly criticizing the late Pope Pius XII, the wartime pope whose alleged silence during the Holocaust has long been a subject of controversy.
On Thursday, Benedict XVI will lead a commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the death of Pius XII in 1958.
At the end of a brief speech to the synod this afternoon on the Jewish approach to the Bible, Rabbi Shear-Yashuv Cohen alluded to the controversies over Pius XII.
“We cannot forget the sad and painful fact of how many, including great religious leaders, didn’t raise a voice in the effort to save our brethren, but chose to keep silent and help secretly,” said Cohen, the Chief Rabbi of Haifa in Israel.
“We cannot forgive and forget, and we hope you understand our pain, our sorrow,” Cohen said, speaking in English to an audience of some 253 cardinals, archbishops and bishops, as well as Benedict XVI.
Cohen never mentioned Pius XII by name, though in context the reference seemed obvious. Earlier in the day Cohen gave an interview to Reuters in which he said that had he realized his visit to the Vatican would coincide with ceremonies commemorating the death of Pius XII, he might not have come.
His remarks on Pope Pius to the synod were not in Cohen's prepared text, suggesting a last-minute addition.
Cohen's remarks come at a delicate moment, as Benedict XVI weighs whether to move forward in declaring his controversial predecessor a saint. In May 2007, the Vatican’s Congregation for Saints voted to endorse Pius XII's “heroic virtue,” the first formal step in the process, and a document confirming that verdict is now awaiting a papal signature. Only when that occurs can officials move forward with investigation of a miracle, which is required for beatification. Another miracle would be required for eventual canonization.
Cohen also issued a biting, though once again indirect, swipe at Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Cohen referred to the “terrible and vicious words of the president of a certain state in the Middle East” in a recent speech at the United Nations. Cohen said these “false and malicious accusations, the threats and anti-Semitic incitement” cannot help but remind Jews of the Holocaust.
As a young man, Cohen was part of a movement linked to the Irgun, an armed group seeking the creation of a Jewish state. During the fighting that surrounded recognition of the nation of Israel in 1948, in which Jewish forces lost control of the Old City in Jerusalem, Cohen was wounded in the leg and spent time in a prisoner of war camp in Jordan. The Chief Rabbi of Haifa, Cohen has long been an advisor and spiritual guide to the Israeli army. He’s also a former Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem.
Cohen called upon Catholic leaders to “raise your voice, so together with the help of free world defend, we can protect and save Israel from the hands of our enemies.”
“What happened once should not happen again,” Cohen said. “My being here makes me feel that we can expect your help, and I am sure your message will be listened to by influential people all over the world.”
Cohen applauded the Catholic church for its outreach to Jews, which he traced to Pope John XXIII (1958-63), and which he also attributed to Pope John Paul II. He noted that this afternoon, several bishops made reference to Jews as the “older brothers” of Christians, and said “we deeply appreciate this evaluation.”
Since 2002, Cohen has been the Jewish co-chair of a bilateral dialogue between the Vatican’s Commission for Religious Relations with Jews and the Chief Rabbinate of Israel.
The invitation to address the Synod of Bishops, Cohen said, is an indication “you intend to continue this policy.”
“I thank God that he has kept us alive to be together, to work together for a future of peaceful coexistence the world over,” Cohen said.
The bulk of Cohen’s address was devoted to a description of the role of the Bible in Jewish faith and worship. He described the elaborate rituals, for example, which surround the public proclamation of the Tanakh, the Hebrew term for the law, prophets and wisdom writings of the Old Testament.
Cohen recalled that as a child he was taught to commit the entire Tanakh to heart by his father, who was also a famous rabbi. He said the Bible is at the center of Jewish preaching.
“When we rabbis speak about important matters such as the sanctity of life, resisting promiscuity, the struggle against secularism, or the values of brotherhood, fraternity, peace, equality, and respect of others, we always build our address around Biblical quotations,” he said. “The Scriptures never lose their vitality, their relevance to the issues of our time and age.”
Cohen said that a keen interest in scripture is alive and well in contemporary Israel. During annual Independence Day celebrations, Cohen said, Israel sponsors a national “Bible Quiz” for youth which attracts interest not merely from students in religious schools, but also from secular Jews.
After Cohen finished, French Cardinal Albert Vanhoye, a Jesuit Biblical scholar renowned for his work on the Letter to the Hebrews, and a former secretary of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, spoke on the Christian interpretation of the Jewish scriptures. His remarks drew on a 2001 document from the Pontifical Biblical Commission titled “The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible.”(John Allen: Rabbi says Jews cannot 'forgive and forget' Pius XII.)
This is all so insidious. The mere fact that any kind of credence was given to Rabbi Shear-Yashuv Cohen as an "expert" in Sacred Scripture is insulting to God and injurious to the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood. Cohen was able to defame Pope Pius XII, albeit indirectly, while at the same time speak about how his false religion is to "coexist" with the true Faith and the role of the Bible in maintaining his false rites, which are repugnant to God Himself. There can be no doubt but that those who believe that God is given glory and that souls are edified by such a display of false ecumenism have defected from the Catholic Faith and are themselves enemies of God and of the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood.
Talmudic Judaism is a false religion. Its adherents must be converted unconditionally to the true Faith. The lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism thus show themselves to be the enemies of the very people of the Talmud to whom they show such "tolerance" as true Charity demands that every Catholic do whatever is possible, first by prayer and then by one's words and actions, to seek the conversion of non-Catholics to the true Church, outside of which there is no salvation. It is evil to convey the message to everyone, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, that a Talmudic interpretation of the Bible is valid and/or that the very Word of God is so obscure as to make a Talmudic interpretation of It eminently reasonable.
Remember that it was none other than the then Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger who wrote the following in God and the World in the year 2000:
“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 Ratzinger, God and the World, p. 209.)
His Excellency Bishop Mark A. Pivarunas, the Superior General of the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen, gave an excellent conference this morning at the opening of the annual Fatima Conference at Mount Saint Michael's Church in which he catalogued the various ways in which the Old Testament points unequivocally and without any obscurity at all to the Sacred Divinity and the Redemptive Act of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Bishop Pivarunas provided this catalogue of Old Testament passages prior to quoting from Ratzinger's God and the World passage cited above, about which he had written the following in his Adsum newsletter's December, 2007, issue:
What blasphemy! According to Ratzinger, divine revelation is obscure and there are perfectly good reasons for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ! What he is saying in reality is that God has failed inasmuch as the divinely inspired prophecies aren't sufficiently clear enough. This is the reason that Pope St. Pius X, knowing this evil tenet of modernism, explicitly stated in the Oath Against Modernism that miracles and prophecies are the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion, and that they are well adapted to all eras and all men.
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI did note Pope Pius XII's efforts in behalf of the Jews in the "homily" he gave today, October 9, 2008, on the occasion of the fiftiteth anniversary of the late pontiff's death:
The war highlighted the love he felt for his "beloved Rome," a love demonstrated by the intense charitable work he undertook in defense of the persecuted, without any distinction of religion, ethnicity, nationality or political leanings. When, once the city was occupied, he was repeatedly advised to leave the Vatican to safeguard himself, his answer was always the same and decisive: "I will not leave Rome and my place, even at the cost of my life" (cf Summarium, p. 186). His relatives and other witnesses refer furthermore to privations regarding food, heating, clothes and comfort, to which he subjected himself voluntarily in order to share in the extremely trying conditions suffered by the people due to the bombardments and consequences of war (cf A. Tornielli, "Pio XII, Un uomo sul trono di Pietro"). And how can we forget his Christmas radio message of December 1942? In a voice breaking with emotion he deplored the situation of "the hundreds of thousands of persons who, without any fault on their part, sometimes only because of their nationality or race, have been consigned to death or to a slow decline" (AAS, XXXV, 1943, p. 23), a clear reference to the deportation and extermination of the Jews. He often acted secretly and silently because, in the light of the concrete realities of that complex historical moment, he saw that this was the only way to avoid the worst and save the largest possible number of Jews. His interventions, at the end of the war and at the time of his death, received numerous and unanimous expressions of gratitude from the highest authorities of the Jewish world, such as, for example, the Israeli Foreign Minister Golda Meir, who wrote: "During the ten years of Nazi terror, when our people went through the horrors of martyrdom, the Pope raised his voice to condemn the persecutors and commiserate with their victims"; ending emotionally: "We mourn a great servant of peace." (Benedict's Homily on Pius XII)
Some might very well say in rejoinder to this writer, "See? See? He showed Rabbi Cohen, didn't he?" The "pope" didn't have to answer the rabbi at the "synod," we will be told. He "answered" him three days later, stating as well in his homily that he, Ratzinger/Benedict was praying that "the cause of beatification of the Servant of God Pius XII may continue smoothly." "What the 'rabbi' said meant nothing, right, you old sedevacantist? See? See how wrong you are?"
Alas, Rabbi Cohen had no business addressing the "synod of bishops" and thus being in a place of receiving "papal" approbation as he mouthed his blatherings. A set of false "opposites" designed to make the conciliar "pope" look "good" in the face of a rabbi's indirect criticism of a possibly soon-to-be "beatified" pontiff will be allowed to pass unnoticed as very few people even begin to question the premise of having an adherent of the blasphemous Talmud, address an alleged assembly of Catholic "bishops."
And some reports (see:
http://www.polskieradio.pl/thenews/news/?id=92912) indicate that it is possible that Ratzinger/Benedict will "beatify" Pope Pius XII and Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II at the same time, replicating Wojtyla/John Paul II's joint "beatifications" of Pope Pius IX, the author of the Syllabus of Errors, and Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII on the same day, September 3, 2000. Those who believe in the false, Hegelian notion that truth contains within itself the seeds of its own internal contradiction see no problem in the "joint beatifications" of men who taught entirety different things. (It is interesting to note that the "joint beatification" of Pope Pius IX and Roncalli took place on the traditional feast of the great foe of Modernism, Pope Saint Pius X.)
As my dear wife Sharon has noted, "Why doesn't Ratzinger/Benedict just 'beatify' himself on the same day as Pope Pius XII and Wojtyla/John Paul II, saving his 'successor' of going to all of the terrible trouble of finding a true pope, perhaps Pope Leo XIII, with whom to be paired. After all, the proclamation of one as deity worked for the Caesars. The self-proclamation of blessedness ought to be considered as yet another 'novelty' by the conciliarists." Sharon may very well be onto something here, wouldn't you say?
Suffice it to say for the present that Rabbi Shear-Yashuv Cohen is not only a man who blasphemes God by adhering to a blasphemous document, the Talmud. Rabbi Shear-Yashuv Cohen is a man who is a liar and a distorter of history to serve his own anti-Incarnational ends. That he was given any space at all to peddle his blasphemous wares speaks volumes about the depths of apostasy that beat in the darkened hearts of the cowards of the counterfeit church of conciliarism who sat in utter silence as a true Successor of Peter was defamed, albeit indirectly. No sense of outrage. After all, how could outrage be expressed? Criticize an adherent of the Talmud? That wouldn't have been a display of "tolerance" for those who believe in the One World Ecumenical Church, now would it?
Thus it is that distortions and abject lies pass for the truth. Most people in the world, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, hear the lies told about Pope Pius XII while never even being given the brief bits of evidence in the late pontiff's defense provided in
For Fear of the Jews. Most people in the world hear reports such as those containing Rabbi Cohen's indirect criticisms of Pope Pius XII and go about their business, never bothering to read books that contain the actual historical record:
In 1963, Dr. Joseph Lichten, Director of Intercultural Affairs for the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith, wrote an appraisal of the Vatican during the War. He quoted a German Jewish couple whom Pius XII helped escape through Rome to Spain:
None of us wanted the Pope to taken an open stand. We were all fugitives and do not wish to be pointed at. The Gestapo would have become more excited and would have intensified its inquisitions. If the Pope had protested, Rome would have become the center of attention. It was better that the Pope said nothing. We all shared this opinion at the time and this is still our conviction today.
Ernst von Weizsacker, a German ambassador to the Vatican during the war, expressed this same sentiment when he informed the Holy See that any protest by the Pope would only make things worse on the Jews:
A "flaming protest by the Pope would not only have been unsuccessful in halting the machinery of destruction but might have caused a great deal of additional damage--to the thousands of Jews hidden in the Vatican and the monasteries, to the Mischlinge, the Church, the territorial integrity of the Vatican City, and--last but not least--to the Catholics in al of Germany-occupied Europe. . . .
Pius XII's decision to use pastoral action instead of political posturing was neither ill-informed, shaped by prejudice or bias, nor made without serious consideration of the consequences. Perhaps more important, as expressed in his encyclical Summi Pontificatus, Pius felt that what he was doing was the appropriate thing for the Church to do. All evidence shows that he believed his approach would best serve Jewish victims of the Nazis. This was what most Jewish leaders had advised, as well as Polish Archbishop Adam Sapieha, almost all German religious leaders, the International Red Cross, and several Jewish organizations. A fair evaluation of the evidence suggests that they (and the Pope) were right. (Ronald J. Rychlak, Hitler, the War, and the Pope, Our Sunday Visitor Press, 2000, pp. 262-263.)
Another passage form Professor Rychlak's book, commenting on The New York Times 1942 Christmas editorial praising Pope Pius XII (the text of the editorial is found in For Fear of the Jews), makes Rabbi Cohen's remarks at the "synod of bishops" even the more reprehensible:
To the Axis leaders the Pope's Christmas message was not hard to decipher. Mussolini was greatly angered by the speech. The German ambassador to the Vatican complained that Pius had abandoned any pretense of neutrality and was "clearly speaking on behalf of the Jews." An American report noted that the Germans were "conspicuous by their absence" at a Midnight Mass conducted by the Pope on Christmas Eve for diplomats. One German report stated:
In a manner never known before, the Pope has repudiated the National Socialist New European Order.... It is true, the Pope does not refer to the National Socialist in Germany by name, but his speech is one long attack on everything we stand for...God, he says, regards all people and races as worthy of the same consideration. Here he is clearly speaking on behalf of the Jews...he is virtually accusing the German people of injustice toward the Jews, and makes himself the mouthpiece of the Jewish war criminal.
German Ambassador Bergen, on the instruction of Foreign Minister Ribbentrop, immediately warned the Pope that the Nazis would seek retaliation if the Vatican abandoned its neutral position. When he reported back to his superiors, the German ambassador stated: "Pacelli is no more sensible to threats than we are." (Ronald J. Rychlak, Hitler, the War, and the Pope, Our Sunday Visitor Press, 2000, pp. 178-179.)
Outrages permitted in the name of false ecumenism and "peaceful coexistence" with the ancient enemies of the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ are horrific in and of themselves. These outrages, however, are just part of the larger tableau of false ecumenism that includes the esteeming of the symbols of false religions by the conciliar "pontiffs" and inter-religious "prayer" services conducted in full violation of the authentic tradition and Canon Law of the Catholic Church, as Bishop George Hay noted over two hundred years ago:
The spirit of Christ, which dictated the Holy Scriptures, and the spirit which animates and guides the Church of Christ, and teaches her all truth, is the same; and therefore in all ages her conduct on this point has been uniformly the same as what the Holy Scripture teaches. She has constantly forbidden her children to hold any communication, in religious matters, with those who are separated from her communion; and this she has sometimes done under the most severe penalties. In the apostolical canons, which are of very ancient standing, and for the most part handed down from the apostolical age, it is thus decreed: "If any bishop, or priest, or deacon, shall join in prayers with heretics, let him be suspended from Communion". (Can. 44)
Also, "If any clergyman or laic shall go into the synagogue of the Jews, or the meetings of heretics, to join in prayer with them, let him be deposed, and deprived of communion". (Can. 63) (Bishop George Hay, (The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion.)
One of these other outrages was committed in Lourdes, France, last month when the non-"archbishop" of Canterbury, Mr. Rowan Williams, a layman who is having a whale of a costume party as an alleged "bishop" of the schismatic and heretical Anglican sect that was started by the corrupt adulterer and bigamist and mass murdered named King Henry VIII, gave the "homily" at a Novus Ordo service that was presided over by none other than Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI himself. Lay heretic-schismatic Rowan William's "homily" was given in full violation of the counterfeit church of conciliarism's own alleged "code of canon law," which limits the giving of "homilies" to deacons, priests and bishops.
Although Williams has drawn the ire of his fellow Protestants for accepting Our Lady's apparitions to Saint Bernadette Soubirous from February 11, 1858, to July 16, 1858, as legitimate, one Anglican "expert" explained that Ratzinger/Benedict was conceding the legitimacy of Williams's nonexistent episcopal "orders," thus indicating that he, Ratzinger/Benedict no longer considers Pope Leo XIII's Apostolicae Curae as binding. This observation, although not a new one, is very interesting as Walter "Cardinal" Kasper, the President of the "Pontifical" Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said on May 24, 2003, that the perpetually binding nature of Apostolicae Curae needed to "re-evaluated:"
As I see the problem and its possible solution, it is not a question of apostolic succession in the sense of an historical chain of laying on of hands running back through the centuries to one of the apostles; this would be a very mechanical and individualistic vision, which by the way historically could hardly be proved and ascertained. The Catholic view is different from such an individualistic and mechanical approach. Its starting point is the collegium of the apostles as a whole; together they received the promise that Jesus Christ will be with them till the end of the world (Matt 28, 20). So after the death of the historical apostles they had to co-opt others who took over some of their apostolic functions. In this sense the whole of the episcopate stands in succession to the whole of the collegium of the apostles.
To stand in the apostolic succession is not a matter of an individual historical chain but of collegial membership in a collegium, which as a whole goes back to the apostles by sharing the same apostolic faith and the same apostolic mission. The laying on of hands is under this aspect a sign of co-optation in a collegium.
This has far reaching consequences for the acknowledgement of the validity of the episcopal ordination of another Church. Such acknowledgement is not a question of an uninterrupted chain but of the uninterrupted sharing of faith and mission, and as such is a question of communion in the same faith and in the same mission.
It is beyond the scope of our present context to discuss what this means for a re-evaluation of Apostolicae Curae (1896) of Pope Leo XIII, who declared Anglican orders null and void, a decision which still stands between our Churches. Without doubt this decision, as Cardinal Willebrands had already affirmed, must be understood in our new ecumenical context in which our communion in faith and mission has considerably grown. A final solution can only be found in the larger context of full communion in faith, sacramental life, and shared apostolic mission.
Before venturing further on this decisive point for the ecumenical vision, that is a renewed communio ecclesiology, I should speak first on another stumbling block or, better, the stumbling block of ecumenism: the primacy of the bishop of Rome, or as we say today, the Petrine ministry. This question was the sticking point of the separation between Canterbury and Rome in the 16th century and it is still the object of emotional controversies.
Significant progress has been achieved on this delicate issue in our Anglican/Roman Catholic dialogues, especially in the last ARCIC document The Gift of Authority (1998). The problem, however, is that what pleased Catholics in this document did not always please all Anglicans, and points which were important for Anglican self-understanding were not always repaid by Catholic affection. So we still have a reception problem and a challenge for further theological work.
It was Pope John Paul II who opened the door to future discussion on this subject. In his encyclical Ut Unum Sint (1995) he extended an invitation to a fraternal dialogue on how to exercise the Petrine ministry in a way that is more acceptable to non-Catholic Christians. It was a source of pleasure for us that among others the Anglican community officially responded to this invitation. The Pontifical Council for Christian Unity gathered the many responses, analyzed the data, and sent its conclusions to the churches that had responded. We hope in this way to have initiated a second phase of a dialogue that will be decisive for the future of the ecumenical approach.
Nobody could reasonably expect that we could from the outset reach a phase of consensus; but what we have reached is not negligible. It has become evident that a new atmosphere and a new climate exist. In our globalized world situation the biblical testimonies on Peter and the Petrine tradition of Rome are read with new eyes because in this new context the question of a ministry of universal unity, a common reference point and a common voice of the universal church, becomes urgent. Old polemical formulas stand at odds with this urgency; fraternal relations have become the norm. Extensive research has been undertaken that has highlighted the different traditions between East and West already in the first millennium, and has traced the development in understanding and in practice of the Petrine ministry throughout the centuries. As well, the historical conditionality of the dogma of the First Vatican Council (1869-70), which must be distinguished from its remaining obligatory content, has become clear. This historical development did not come to an end with the two Vatican Councils, but goes on, and so also in the future the Petrine ministry has to be exercised in line with the changing needs of the Church.
These insights have led to a re-interpretation of the dogma of the Roman primacy. This does not at all mean that there are still not enormous problems in terms of what such a ministry of unity should look like, how it should be administered, whether and to what degree it should have jurisdiction and whether under certain circumstances it could make infallible statements in order to guarantee the unity of the Church and at the same time the legitimate plurality of local churches. But there is at least a wide consensus about the common central problem, which all churches have to solve: how the three dimensions, highlighted already by the Lima documents on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (1982), namely unity through primacy, collegiality through synodality, and communality of all the faithful and their spiritual gifts, can be brought into a convincing synthesis. A Vision of Christian Unity for the Next Generation
Anyone who does not believe that Walter Kasper was expressing the mind of the then reigning conciliar "pontiff" or the currently reigning conciliar "pontiff" is deluding himself very badly. Walter Kasper's belief in the "historical conditionality" of dogmatic truth is identical to that of Joseph Ratzinger's himself, a view that has been oft-critiqued on this site. And it is this belief in the "historical conditionality" of dogmatic truth, including the dogmatic truth contained in Apostolicae Curae, that makes the observations of the Anglican Bosco Peters concerning the meaning of Rowan Williams's "preaching" in Lourdes, France, very relevant:
Much fuss has been made of the preaching by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, at a Roman Catholic Mass at Lourdes celebrating 150 years since the 1858 vision of the Blessed Virgin Mary to 14-year-old Bernadette Soubirous. The Protestant Truth Society accused Archbishop Rowan as “behaving as little more than a Papal puppet”. What has, it seems to me, been lost in this dust-storm, is that in inviting the Archbishop to preach Roman Catholics appear to be accepting that the Archbishop of Canterbury is validly ordained.
On the feast of Our Lady of Walsingham, the Archbishop, referring to Mary as “the Lord’s spotless Mother” and “Mother of God”, takes the apparitions as a given: “When Mary came to Bernadette, she came at first as an anonymous figure, a beautiful lady, a mysterious ‘thing’, not yet identified as the Lord’s spotless mother,” he said. “Only bit by bit does Bernadette find the words to let the world know; only bit by bit, we might say, does she discover how to listen to the Lady and echo what she has to tell us.”
Rev. Jeremy Brooks, Director of Ministry, of the Protestant Truth Society said: ‘All true Protestants will be appalled at the news that the Archbishop of Canterbury has visited Lourdes, and preached there as a part of the 150th anniversary celebrations at the Roman Catholic shrine. Lourdes represents everything about Roman Catholicism that the Protestant Reformation rejected, including apparitions, mariolatry and the veneration of saints. The Archbishop’s simple presence there is a wholesale compromise, and his sermon which included a reference to Mary as “The Mother of God” is a complete denial of Protestant orthodoxy. At a time when our country is crying out for clear Biblical leadership, it is nothing short of tragic that our supposedly Protestant Archbishop is behaving as little more than a Papal puppet.’
Roman Catholics accept Archbishop of Canterbury’s orders
Roman Catholic bishops may authorise lay persons to preach in Catholic churches (canon 766), but according to canon 767 only a priest or deacon may preach at Mass. Every Catholic seminarian would know this from seminary’s Liturgy 101. So in inviting the Archbishop of Canterbury to preach at such an internationally significant Roman Catholic Mass are they acknowledging that Archbishop Rowan Williams is validly ordained?
The 1896 papal bull, Apostolicae Curae, pronounced Anglican orders “absolutely null and utterly void”. Since then, however, Roman Catholics have themselves reformed their ordination rites making them highly similar to Anglican ones. And since 1931 Anglicans and Old Catholics have been in full communion. Old Catholic orders are accepted as valid by the Vatican, and Old Catholics have, since 1931, been fully involved in Anglican ordinations, restoring continuity in the minds of those who considered there had been some sort of “break”. Roman Catholics accept Archbishop of Canterbury’s orders? | Liturgy
Mr. Bosco Peters correctly observes that the conciliar Vatican does indeed accept the nonexistent "validity" of Anglican "orders. He errs, however, in asserting that such orders might be valid from a Catholic perspective because of the Anglican sect's "communion" with the schismatic and heretical Old Catholics. Leaving aside the issue of the validity of Old Catholic orders (the Church at one time accepted only the pure Utrecht line of the Old Catholics to be valid), the Anglican ordinal is invalid on its face no matter who uses it to attempt an "episcopal" "consecration." Not even a putatively valid Old Catholic bishop of a pure and untouched Utrecht line could use the Anglican ordinal to consecrate validly any man, no less a woman, to the episcopate.
To wit, even fully valid Catholic bishops who used the 1968 "rite" of episcopal "consecration" that was promulgated by Giovanni Montini/Paul VI did not consecrate true bishops of the Catholic Church as the rite itself was and remains null and void (see Father Anthony Cekada's summary of his treatise on this matter, New Bishops, Empty Tabernacle). Anglicans have invalid orders and a rite of "consecration" very similar to that of the conciliarists themselves, as Bosco Peters notes quite rightly, and the fact that the conciliar Vatican gives any signal at all that such orders are valid is a proof once again of the apostasy represented by the rise of Angelo Roncalli as the first head of the conciliar church nineteen days after the death of Pope Pius XII fifty years ago today, October 9, 1958.
Pope Pius XII was reported to have said
"After me, the deluge." Part of that deluge, as we know now, involves the use of Hegelian illogic to make certain infallible, irreformable declarations of dogmatic truth "conditioned" by the historical circumstances in which they were made. This itself, as has been demonstrated on this site endlessly, is the cornerstone of each of conciliarism's other apostasies (the new ecclesiology, false ecumenism, inter-religious "prayer services," episcopal collegiality, religious liberty, separation of Church and State). It was under Pope Pius XII's pontificate that the young German theologian named Joseph Ratzinger, a propagator of false, condemned notions of dogmatic truth, was under suspicion by the Holy Office of the Inquisition for heresy. Ratzinger's heresies are on view for anyone who has the honesty to see as he parades around as a false "successor" of the true pope under whose Holy Office he was under suspicion of heresy.
Contrast Joseph Ratzinger's view of dogmatic truth with its condemnation by none other than Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, an encyclical letter that condemned the very "new theology" to which Joseph Ratzinger has devoted his entire apostate life as a priest as he disparages Scholasticism, the official philosophy of the Catholic Church, that was defended so vigorously by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis (an encyclical letter that was nowhere mentioned in Ratzinger/Benedict's "homily" today!):
In theses 10-12, the difficult problem of the relationship between language and thought is debated, which in post-conciliar discussions was the immediate departure point of the dispute.
The identity of the Christian substance as such, the Christian 'thing' was not directly ... censured, but it was pointed out that no formula, no matter how valid and indispensable it may have been in its time, can fully express the thought mentioned in it and declare it unequivocally forever, since language is constantly in movement and the content of its meaning changes. (Fr. Ratzinger: Dogmatic formulas must always change.)
The text [of the Second Vatican Council] also presents the various forms of bonds that rise from the different degrees of magisterial teaching. It affirms -- perhaps for the first time with this clarity -- that there are decisions of the Magisterium that cannot be a last word on the matter as such, but are, in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition. Its nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times have influenced, may need further ramifications.
“In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes in the last century about religious liberty, as well as the anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, above all, the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time. As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial adaptations, they will remain fully justified. A personage such as Johann Baptist Metz said, for example, that the Church's anti-Modernist decisions render the great service of preserving her from immersion in the liberal-bourgeois world. But in the details of the determinations they contain, they become obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at the proper moment.” (L'Osservatore Romano, July 2, 1990.)
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. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005.)
These new opinions, whether they originate from a reprehensible desire of novelty or from a laudable motive, are not always advanced in the same degree, with equal clarity nor in the same terms, nor always with unanimous agreement of their authors. Theories that today are put forward rather covertly by some, not without cautions and distinctions, tomorrow are openly and without moderation proclaimed by others more audacious, causing scandal to many, especially among the young clergy and to the detriment of ecclesiastical authority. Though they are usually more cautious in their published works, they express themselves more openly in their writings intended for private circulation and in conferences and lectures. Moreover, these opinions are disseminated not only among members of the clergy and in seminaries and religious institutions, but also among the laity, and especially among those who are engaged in teaching youth.
In theology some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas; and to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers, to bring about a return in the explanation of Catholic doctrine to the way of speaking used in Holy Scripture and by the Fathers of the Church. They cherish the hope that when dogma is stripped of the elements which they hold to be extrinsic to divine revelation, it will compare advantageously with the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the Church and that in this way they will gradually arrive at a mutual assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of the dissidents.
Moreover they assert that when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern needs, that will permit of dogma being expressed also by the concepts of modern philosophy, whether of immanentism or idealism or existentialism or any other system. Some more audacious affirm that this can and must be done, because they hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression to divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say. They add that the history of dogmas consists in the reporting of the various forms in which revealed truth has been clothed, forms that have succeeded one another in accordance with the different teachings and opinions that have arisen over the course of the centuries.
It is evident from what We have already said, that such tentatives not only lead to what they call dogmatic relativism, but that they actually contain it. The contempt of doctrine commonly taught and of the terms in which it is expressed strongly favor it. Everyone is aware that the terminology employed in the schools and even that used by the Teaching Authority of the Church itself is capable of being perfected and polished; and we know also that the Church itself has not always used the same terms in the same way. It is also manifest that the Church cannot be bound to every system of philosophy that has existed for a short space of time. Nevertheless, the things that have been composed through common effort by Catholic teachers over the course of the centuries to bring about some understanding of dogma are certainly not based on any such weak foundation. These things are based on principles and notions deduced from a true knowledge of created things. In the process of deducing, this knowledge, like a star, gave enlightenment to the human mind through the Church. Hence it is not astonishing that some of these notions have not only been used by the Oecumenical Councils, but even sanctioned by them, so that it is wrong to depart from them. (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)
This is not a matter of "steeping up" the "resistance," as some have noted recently. Absolutely not. This is matter of refusing to recognize the legitimacy of a pretender to the Throne of Saint Peter who defies anathematized propositions of the Catholic Church and dares to give credence to non-Catholics in allegedly Catholic "liturgies" and "synods," a man who dares to esteem the symbols of false religions with his own priestly hands. No one but one who so believes and so acts and speaks is a member of the Catholic Church. Pope Leo XIII made this abundantly clear in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896:
The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).
It has been amply demonstrated that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict defects from the Catholic Faith in any number of ways, starting from his rejection of the nature of dogmatic truth, making it possible for him to dismiss anything from the Catholic past, including Apostolicae Curae, that he believes has become obsolete because of a "change" in historical circumstances. No one who is the least bit honest can deny that Ratzinger's condemned, anathematized views of dogmatic truth place him outside of the pale of the Catholic Church, making him, of course, an object of our prayers for his return to the Church before he dies, but obliging us to accord him no legitimacy at any time and in any way, shape or form as a legitimate and true Successor of Saint Peter, which his apostasies show him incapable of being for one single moment.
Oh, some will say that it is "impossible" for there to be a papal vacancy for fifty years, that such a thing is without precedent. What those who say this have to believe, however, is that it is possible for there to be a fifty year period in which "popes" defy anathematized statements and participate in blasphemous liturgies while giving credence to the beliefs and practices of false religions, something that is not only without precedent but absolutely precluded by the very doctrine of the Catholic Church:
A legitimate pope cannot contradict or deny what was first taught by Christ to His Church. An essential change in belief constitutes the establishment of a new religion.
The attribute of infallibility was given to the popes in order that the revealed doctrines and teaching of Christ would remain forever intact and unchanged. It is contrary to faith and reason to blindly follow an alleged pope who attempts to destroy the Catholic Faith--for there have been 41 documented antipopes. Papal infallibility means that the Holy Ghost guides and preserves the Catholic Church from error through the succession of legitimate popes who have ruled the Church through the centuries. All Catholics, including Christ's Vicar on earth, the pope, must accept all the doctrinal pronouncements of past popes. These infallible teachings form a vital link between Christ and St. Peter and his successors.
If a pope did not accept and believe this entire body of formulated teachings (the Deposit of Faith), he could not himself be a Catholic. He would cease to belong to Christ's Church. If he no longer belongs to the Catholic Church, he cannot be her Head. (Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki, CMRI, Tumultuous Times, p. 274.)
"Do not be misled by various and passing doctrines. In the Catholic Church Herself we must be careful to hold what has been believed everywhere, always and by all; for that alone is truly and properly Catholic." (Saint Vincent of Lerins, quoted in Tumultuous Times by Frs. Francisco and Dominic Radecki, CMRI, p. 279.)
We turn to Our Lady by means of her Most Holy Rosary to beg her to help us in this time of apostasy and betrayal. We pray our Rosaries each day as we offer up our meditations to the Most Sacred Heart of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart in reparation for our own sins, which are so responsible for the state of the Church and the world, and those of the whole world.
We know that Our Lady's Immaculate Heart will triumph in the end. Until that time, however, let us not take any chances with our immortal souls. Let us cling exclusively at all times to true bishops and true priests who make no concessions to conciliarism whatsoever and who accord the false shepherds of the counterfeit church of conciliarism no legitimacy at all, joining with our true bishops and priests as we pray for the conversion of these false shepherds to the true Church, the Catholic Church, from which they have defected and with which they are engaged, whether or not they realize it, in mortal warfare at the very behest of the devil himself.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Viva Cristo Rey!
Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saint Remigius, pray for us.
Saint Therese of Lisieux, pray for us.
Saint Francis of Assisi, pray for us.
Saint Bruno, pray for us.
Saint Bridget of Sweden, pray for us.
Saint Placidus and Companions, pray for us.
Saint John Leonardi, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints