When Caiphas Speaks, Benedict Listens
by Thomas A. Droleskey
But one of them, named Caiphas, being the high priest that year, said to them: You know nothing. Neither do you consider that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
And this he spoke not of himself: but being the high priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation. (John 11: 49-51)
The high priest Caiphas spoke the words above, recorded for posterity in the Gospel according to Saint John, to indicate that he had a "strategy" for dealing with the Roman occupiers as his party of Pharisees maintained their privileged places in the Roman occupation of the provinces of Palestine, including Judea and Galilee. Caiphas may have suspected that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was God in the very Flesh, that He was indeed the Messiah who had been prophesied in Sacred Scripture. Caiphas did not care about the truth of the matter. It was more "expedient" for Caiphas and his party of Pharisees that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ be put to death so as to protect their own places in the Roman order of things. The Pharisees had made their "accommodations" to the Roman occupation of Palestine, and they would not let the Zealot party or any self-professed Son of God upset their status with the people who they held under their thumbs.
A similar situation is taking place before our very eyes. Modern-day disciples of Caiphas find it expedient that at least some of the truths contained in the Deposit of Faith (the Order of Grace, the Order of Redemption) and the truths that exist in the Order of Creation (Nature) must be "sacrificed" in order for their carefully crafted "strategies," advanced to promote what they have convinced themselves will be a "restoration" of Tradition, can be permitted to "win the day" as the forces of Roman occupation of formerly Catholic dioceses and churches and schools offer them a place in the hallowed halls of the officialdom of the occupation. It is as though the modern-day Caiphases are saying:
Neither do you consider that it is expedient for you that one truth should be buried now and again for the sake of Tradition, and that our cause perish not.
According to these modern-day disciples of Caiphas, it is expedient for their cause, which now includes the "regularization" of the Society of Saint Pius X, that past statements of theirs or of those under whom they worked that were critical of the latter-day Roman occupiers of Catholic churches and other institutions should be expunged from websites as books containing quotations of such criticisms are treated as though they were never printed. Yet it is that the man these disciples of Caiphas seek to indemnify time and time and time again, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, takes his marching orders on so many occasions from Talmudists who know the true Catholic Faith better than he does, which is why they express their alarm when there is any hint of those who believe in that true Catholic Faith of receiving his canonical "blessing."
Thus it is that Abraham Foxman, the National Director of the so-called "Anti Defamation League" of B'Nai Brith, a Masonic organization, is demanding that "Pope" Benedict XVI make sure that the bishops and the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X fully accept the conciliar agenda before they are "reintegrated" to the structures of what most people think is the Catholic Church but is, of course, her counterfeit ape whose officials teach and act in ways contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Faith and the very actions of the Apostles themselves when they refused to listen to the "demands" of the Sanhedrin to refuse to speak of the Holy Name of Jesus ever again. The Apostles accepted punishment and even death at the hands of the Sanhedrin. The apostles of conciliarism bristle at any suggestion of offending the tender sensibilities of their Talmudic masters. This is nothing other than the Acts of the Apostles in reverse.
Here is the press release issued on Friday, September 16, 2011, by the pro-abortion, pro-perversity Anti Defamation League, that contains Abraham Foxman's plea to the false "pontiff:"
York, NY, September 16, 2011 The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) urges
the Vatican to ensure that a breakaway Catholic sect which teaches
anti-Judaism will be required to accept the church's official positive
teachings about Jews and Judaism before they are fully accepted back
into the Roman Catholic Church.
The Vatican announced earlier this week that in order for The Society of St. Pius X to gain full reconciliation with the church, SSPX must accept some core church teachings, but they have not been made public.
was unclear from news reports and Vatican statements whether the
landmark reforms of the Second Vatican Council and subsequent Vatican
teachings - which reversed nearly 2,000 years of church-based
anti-Semitism, repudiated the deicide charge against Jews, and called
for positive and respectful interfaith relations - were included among
these latest requirements.
Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director and a Holocaust survivor, issued the following statement:
are confident that Pope Benedict XVI will continue to require the
Society of St. Pius X, which espouses anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish
beliefs, to publicly accept the church's positive teachings about Jews
and Judaism since the 1965 Second Vatican Council, before fully
accepting them back into the Roman Catholic Church.
would be unthinkable to allow a Catholic breakaway sect that includes a
Holocaust-denying bishop, Richard Williamson, to be reintegrated into
the church while still being allowed to promote anti-Semitism and
anti-Judaism - which they have been doing for years in their teachings
and on their Web site.
trust Pope Benedict's promise that he made to us during our meeting in
2007 that he would stand with us against all forms of anti-Semitism. (ADL Urges Vatican to Ensure that Anti-Jewish sect Accepts Teaching of Vatican II.)
Such a demand by a Talmudist who supports all manner of grave evils while making war upon any and all public proclamation of the Holy Name of Jesus would have been unthinkable prior to the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958. It would also have been totally unnecessary as Bishop Richard Williamson, who has been the particular focus of rage directed at him by conciliarists and their Talmudic masters and minders for placing into question the nature and extend of the crimes of Adolf Hitler's so-called "Third Reich," would be a Catholic bishop in perfectly good standing.
The Catholic Church is anti-Jewish.
She is opposed to all false religions, including Talmudic Judaism.
While she must tolerate the existence of false religions and does not harm to their adherents, the Catholic Church has a duty given her by her Divine Founder and Invisible Head to oppose all false doctrines and to avoid even the slightest trace of the appearance of lending legitimacy to such false religious sects. Bishop Richard Williamson is not the problem here. The falsehoods of another false religion, conciliarism, are the source of the current difficulties as these falsehoods have been designed from their very beginning to do the opposite of the precepts of the Gospel by seeking to please the enemies of the Divine Redeemer and to reaffirm those in false religions that they enjoy God's favor and that their souls are in no peril whatsoever of eternal damnation.
Father Denis Fahey, writing in the Foreword to his Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation, noted that it is not to be "anti-Semitic" to oppose the naturalism of Talmudic Judaism, which seeks silence about the Holy Name of the Divine Redeemer and which teaches that any proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King is per se a manifestation of "anti-Semitism." It is not. We do not hate Jews as individuals. We hate their false religion. Why? Because God hates their false religion. There is only one true religion, Catholicism. Nothing else. Not Judaism. Not any sort of Protestantism. Not Mohammedanism. Not Buddhism. Not Hinduism. Not Jainism. Not anything other than Catholicism. No signs of respect or legitimacy can ever be given to any false religion. It is always a violation of the First Commandment to esteem the symbols of false religions. Always.
These are the words of Father Fahey:
As I was not able to bring out this
book when it was originally written, it has been laid aside for years.
In the meantime, the need for setting forth the full doctrine of the
Kingship of Christ has been forcibly brought home to me by the confusion
created in minds owing to the use of the term “Anti-Semitism.” The
Hitlerite naturalistic or anti-supernatural régime in Germany gave to
the world the odious spectacle of a display of Anti-Semitism, that is,
of hatred of the Jewish Nation. Yet all the propaganda about that
display of Anti-Semitism should not have made Catholics forget the
existence of age-long Jewish Naturalism or Anti-Supernaturalism.
Forgetfulness of the disorder of Jewish Naturalistic opposition to
Christ the King is keeping Catholics blind to the danger that is arising
from the clever extension of the term “Anti-Semitism,” with all its
war-connotation in the minds of the unthinking, to include any form of
opposition to the Jewish Nation’s naturalistic aims. For the leaders of
the Jewish Nation, to stand for the rights of Christ the King is
logically to be “anti-Semitic.”
In March, 1917, Pope Benedict XV wrote to the Archbishop of Tours: “In
the midst of the present upheavals, it is important to repeat to men
that by her divine institution the Catholic Church is the only ark of
salvation for the human race . . . . Accordingly, it is more seasonable
than ever to teach . . . that the truth which liberates, not only
individuals, but societies, is supernatural truth in all its fulness and
in all its purity, without attenuation, diminution or compromise: in a
word, exactly as Our Lord Jesus Christ delivered it to the world.”
These sublime words of the Vicar of Christ have nerved me to do all in
my power to set forth the opposition of every form of Naturalism,
including Jewish Naturalism, to the supernatural Reign of Christ the
King. In addition, for over twenty years I have been offering the Holy
Sacrifice of the Mass every year, on the Feasts of the Resurrection,
Corpus Christi, SS. Peter and Paul and the Assumption of Our Blessed
Mother, for the acceptance by the Jewish Nation of the Divine Plan for
order. Thus I have been striving to follow the example of our Divine
Master. Blessed Pius X insists that “though Jesus was kind to those who
had gone astray, and to sinners, He did not respect their erroneous
convictions, however sincere they appeared to be.”the need of combining
firmness in the proclamation of the integral truth with loving charity
towards those in error is insisted on, even more emphatically, by Pope
Pius XI: “Comprehending and merciful charity towards the erring,” he
writes, “and even towards the contemptuous, does not mean and can not
mean that you renounce in any way the proclaiming of, the insisting on,
and the courageous defence of the truth and its free and unhindered
application to the realities about you. The first and obvious duty the
priest owes to the world about him is service to the truth, the whole
truth, the unmasking and refutation of error in whatever form or
disguise it conceals itself.”
A day will come when the Jewish Nation
will cease to oppose order and will turn in sorrow and repentance to Him
Whom they rejected before Pilate. That will be a glorious triumph for
the Immaculate Heart of Our Blessed Mother. Until that day
dawns, however, their naturalistic opposition to the True Supernatural
Order of the world must be exposed and combated. (Father Denis Fahey, Foreword, The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation.)
Although the Society of Saint Pius X has a false ecclesiology that is nothing other than a recrudescence of the Gallicanism condemned Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794, and that was dissected by Bishop Emile Bougaud (see Appendix A below), one of its principal strengths over the past forty years has been its fealty to the promotion of the Social Reign of Christ the King. This is why the Society of Saint Pius X has been so hated by Talmudists, and it is to ensure that all traces of such an "outdated" and "anti-Semitic" doctrine have been eradicated from the bishops and priests of the Society and their websites that Abraham Foxman is insisting that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, himself an opponent of the Social Reign of Christ the King and a believer in the blasphemous absurdity called "healthy secularity" in the "civilization of love" where "peace" consists of the "mutual coexistence" of all religions, make sure that the Society has been divested of such "offensive" doctrines before accepting Bishop Fellay's signature on that dotted line while not sweating the details.
One of those "little" details entailed by signing on the dotted line is to join up with a man who has steadfastly denied the doctrine of the Catholic Church that the civil state must recognize the true religion in order to advance the common temporal good of man in light of his eternal destiny. It is because the then Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger's open rejection of this teaching that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre changed his mind about a similar agreement in 1988 as he had heard Ratzinger's denial of this Catholic doctrine with his own ears:
Under pressure, Rome gave in. On July 14, Cardinal
Ratzinger received Archbishop Lefebvre at the Holy Office. At first the
Cardinal persisted in arguing that "the State is competent in religious
"But the State must have an ultimate and eternal end," replied the Archbishop.
"Your Grace, that is the case for the Church, not the State. By itself the State does not know."
Archbishop Lefebvre was distraught: a Cardinal
and Prefect of the Holy Office wanted to show him that the State can
have no religion and cannot prevent the spread of error. However, before
talking about concessions, the Cardinal made a threat: the consequence
of an illicit episcopal consecration would be "schism and
"Schism?" retorted the Archbishop. "If there is
a schism, it is because of what the Vatican did at Assisi and how you
replied to our Dubiae: the Church is breaking with the traditional
Magisterium. But the Church against her past and her Tradition is not
the Catholic Church; this is why being excommunicated by a liberal,
ecumenical, and revolutionary Church is a matter of indifference to us."
As this tirade ended, Joseph Ratzinger gave in:
"Let us find a practical solution. Make a moderate declaration on the
Council and the new missal a bit like the one that Jean Guitton has
suggested to you. Then, we would give you a bishop for ordinations, we
could work out an arrangement with the diocesan bishops, and you could
continue as you are doing. As for a Cardinal Protector, and make your
How did Marcel Lefebvre not jump for joy? Rome
was giving in! But his penetrating faith went to the very heart of the
Cardinal's rejection of doctrine. He said to himself: "So, must Jesus no
longer reign? Is Jesus no longer God? Rome has lost the Faith. Rome is
in apostasy. We can no longer trust this lot!" To the Cardinal, he said:
"Eminence, even if you give us everything--a
bishop, some autonomy from the bishops, the 1962 liturgy, allow us to
continue our seminaries--we cannot work together because we are going in
different directions. You are working to dechristianize society and the
Church, and we are working to Christianize them.
"For us, our Lord Jesus Christ is everything.
He is our life. The Church is our Lord Jesus Christ; the priest is
another Christ; the Mass is the triumph of Jesus Christ on the cross; in
our seminaries everything tends towards the reign of our Lord Jesus
Christ. But you! You are doing the opposite: you have just wanted to
prove to me that our Lord Jesus Christ cannot, and must not, reign over
Recounting this incident, the Archbishop
described the Cardinal's attitude: "Motionless, he looked at me, his
eyes expressionless, as if I had just suggested something
incomprehensible or unheard of." Then Ratzinger tried to argue that "the
Church can still say whatever she wants to the State," while Lefebvre,
the intuitive master of Catholic metaphysics, did not lose sight of the
true end of human societies: the Reign of Christ." Fr. de Tinguy hit the
nail on the head when he said of Marcel Lefebvre: "His faith defies
those who love theological quibbles." (His Excellency Bishop Bernard
Tissier de Mallerais, The Biography of Marcel Lefebvre, Kansas City, Missouri: Angelus Press, 2004, pp. 547-548.)
Although it is no secret that Bishop Fellay desires to be rid of Bishop Richard Williamson, whom he has long viewed as an "irritant" and "kook," his signature on that dotted line of the "doctrinal preamble" handed to him by William "Cardinal" Levada, the prefect of the conciliar church's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (which is more aptly called "Congregation for the Deconstruction of the Catholic Faith") will get rid of his "trouble maker" at the cost of complete and utter silence about the Social Reign of Christ the King and of the manner in which Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict kowtows and caters to the Talmudists at almost every turn, noting a few rare exceptions here and there. All to be rid of one man, a Catholic bishop who believes in the Social Reign of Christ the King and who has been outspoken about the Talmudic influence in society and upon the conciliar church, in order to be accepted by a man, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who denies the Social Reign of Christ the King and who has a lifelong commitment to principles and teachings that have been condemned by the Catholic Church and her true popes. (Please see Appendix B below for yet another listing of Ratzinger/Benedict's false beliefs concerning the Jews contrasted with the teaching and the pastoral praxis of the Catholic Church.)
What is the Society of Saint Pius X going to do now? Take down all of the articles that have dissected and condemned Joseph Ratzinger's lifelong record of apostasy? Perhaps. Perhaps. One sees no such criticism on the websites of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter or the "Apostolic Administration" of the Society of Saint John Mary Vianney in Campos, Brazil. Perhaps Bishop Fellay has been silent about such outrages as Kurt "Cardinal" Koch's recent assertion that Protestant sects have their own "martyrs," thus advancing a spirit of the "ecumenism of martyrs", because he has the "greater good" of the Church in mind. The greater good of the Catholic Church, however, can never be advanced by any admixture of truth and error. No, not one drop of poison. Not one little bit of compromise. Not even a moment's worth of silence about error and falsehood. Never. Not under any circumstances.
The Catholic Church has always stood up to Judaism, whether in the first centuries of the church or in the devil's repackaging of it in its contemporary form of Talmudism. The counterfeit church of conciliarism has distinguished itself by its seemingly boundless capacity for giving the ancient enemies of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His true Church signs of esteem and respect and access to air their "grievances" that offend Christ the King and misleads the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross to redeem, including the souls of the Talmudists themselves. How is any kind of work of mercy or compassion or love for them to reaffirm them in a false religion while not even attempting to invite them into the true Church so that their souls, steeped in captivity to the devil by means of Original Sin and suffering the ravages all manner of Actual Sins (that exact their toll on souls no matter the subjective culpability of those who commit them), could be regenerated in the Baptismal font by the very inner life of the Most Blessed Trinity that is Sanctifying Grace and thus approach the Sacred Tribunal of Penance thereafter and to receive Our Lord worthily in Holy Communion? It is not.
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has stated that the atrocities committed by the Nazis has resulted in a change of how the "church" views "religious tolerance," especially as regards the "Faith of Israel," meaning that Pope Saint Pius X's words to Theodore Herzl about converting the Jews if they moved to the Holy Land have been made null and void by the events that took place during World War II, about which the counterfeit church of conciliarism permits no historical review to take place at all, much unlike the "revisionism" carried on by Ratzinger/Benedict himself in the areas listed above in this commentary:
It is clear that this commitment to
expressing a specific truth in a new way demands new thinking on this
truth and a new and vital relationship with it; it is also clear that
new words can only develop if they come from an informed understanding
of the truth expressed, and on the other hand, that a reflection on
faith also requires that this faith be lived. In this regard,
the programme that Pope John XXIII proposed was extremely demanding,
indeed, just as the synthesis of fidelity and dynamic is demanding.. . .
Thirdly, linked more generally to this was
the problem of religious tolerance - a question that required a new
definition of the relationship between the Christian faith and the world
religions. In particular, before the recent crimes of the Nazi
regime and, in general, with a retrospective look at a long and
difficult history, it was necessary to evaluate and define in a new way
the relationship between the Church and the faith of Israel. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005)
Caiphas believed that it was expedient to hand over Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Truth Himself, to the Roman authorities in order to placate them in exchange for a pledge of Roman "protection" for the Pharisees. The modern-day Caiphases believe that it is expedient to hand over "elements" of truth, both supernatural and natural, to the Roman authorities of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, men who live in fear of the adherents of the Talmud and cater to them at almost every turn without seeking their conversion to the true Faith (showing themselves to be the true anti-Semites!), in order to receive Roman "protection" in their own right. And all to serve the interests of the ancient enemies of the Faith who make war against the true Church and against the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law under cover of civil law and in every aspect of popular culture. Bishop Fellay is well on his way to becoming a "kept man" by the conciliar church's minders in Talmudic Judaism.
We must not be modern-day disciples of Caiphas who believe in the efficacy of our own strategies, keeping a strategic silence when lies are presented as the truth and when those who ferret out the lies and defend the truth must be denounced as enemies of the Faith! Despite our own sins and failings and past mistakes, for which we must make reparation to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, we must indeed ferret out the lies as we focus on the simple truth that the Catholic Church can in no way be responsible for the novelties, innovations, apostasies, blasphemies, sacrileges and abominations that have been unleashed by the conciliarists in her name. We must cleave exclusively to true bishops and true priests who make no concessions to conciliarism at all and whose only "strategy" is to be entirely faithful to God as He has revealed Himself to us through the true Church that He Himself founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope.
Today, good readers, is the Feast of the Impression
of the Stigmata upon Saint Francis of Assisi. This holy saint, whose
principal feast we celebrate in seventeen days, that is, on Tuesday, October 4, 2011, bore the brand marks of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ on his holy body, a body that he had punished for over
twenty years with severe penances as he lived in the most austere
poverty imaginable and prayed ceaselessly before Our Lord's Real
Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament. We must invoke the intercession
of this great saint, who was so tenderly devoted to Our Lady, to help us
be thoroughly Catholic in how we think and act as we do indeed oppose
conciliarism and all of its cheating fallacies, each and every single
one of them.
Saint Francis of Assisi will help us to defend the
truths of the Catholic Faith if we pray to him to suffer more, to be
humiliated more, to be rejected and scorned more and more as we embrace
Lady Poverty so that we can bear the brand marks of Christ the King
figuratively in our souls so as to think it nothing to stand steadfastly
and without equivocation in behalf of the truths of the Faith as we
pray fervently for the conciliarists and for those who find their
cheating fallacies attractive and appealing.
Why not pray to Saint Francis of Assisi to suffer
more and to be humiliated more? Why not? Isn't the royal road of the
Cross the path to Heaven. Why not pray to be a victim soul as we seek to
make reparation to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful
and Immaculate Heart of Mary for our own many, many sins of omission
and commission? What's the excuse in delaying such a prayer?
We must, as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit, attempting to plant a few seeds by means of those Rosaries and our other prayers and penances and sacrifices and mortifications and sufferings and humiliations for a true restoration of the Church Militant on earth, one that will come in God's Holy Providence as He Wills it come without any compromise with the truth and without one moment of a "strategic silence" about those things that offend His greater honor and majesty and glory.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!
Our Lady of Fatima, 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.
Saint Francis of Assisi, pray for us.
Saint Joseph Cupertino, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints
The False Ecclesiology of the Society of Saint Pius X Condemned
6. The doctrine of the synod by which it professes that "it
is convinced that a bishop has received from Christ all necessary
rights for the good government of his diocese," just as if for the good
government of each diocese higher ordinances dealing either with faith
and morals, or with general discipline, are not necessary, the right of
which belongs to the supreme Pontiffs and the General Councils for the
universal Church,—schismatic, at least erroneous.
7. Likewise, in this, that it encourages a bishop "to pursue zealously
a more perfect constitution of ecclesiastical discipline," and this
"against all contrary customs, exemptions, reservations which are
opposed to the good order of the diocese, for the greater glory of God
and for the greater edification of the faithful"; in that it supposes that
a bishop has the right by his own judgment and will to decree and
decide contrary to customs, exemptions, reservations, whether they
prevail in the universal Church or even in each province, without the
consent or the intervention of a higher hierarchic power, by which these
customs, etc., have been introduced or approved and have the force of
law,—leading to schism and subversion of hierarchic rule, erroneous.
8. Likewise, in that it says it is convinced that "the rights of a
bishop received from Jesus Christ for the government of the Church
cannot be altered nor hindered, and, when it has happened that the
exercise of these rights has been interrupted for any reason whatsoever,
a bishop can always and should return to his original rights, as often
as the greater good of his church demands it"; in the fact that
it intimates that the exercise of episcopal rights can be hindered and
coerced by no higher power, whenever a bishop shall judge that it does
not further the greater good of his church,—leading to schism, and to
subversion of hierarchic government, erroneous. (Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794.)
The violent attacks of Protestantism against the
Papacy, its calumnies and so manifest, the odious caricatures it
scattered abroad, had undoubtedly inspired France with horror;
nevertheless the sad impressions remained. In such accusations all,
perhaps, was not false. Mistrust was excited., and instead of drawing
closer to the insulted and outraged Papacy, France stood on her guard
against it. In vain did Fenelon, who felt the danger, write in his
treatise on the "Power of the Pope," and, to remind France of her
sublime mission and true role in the world, compose his "History of
Charlemagne." In vain did Bossuet majestically rise in the midst of that
agitated assembly of 1682, convened to dictate laws to the Holy See,
and there, in most touching accents, give vent to professions of
fidelity and devotedness toward the Chair of St. Peter. We already
notice in his discourse mention no longer made of the "Sovereign
Pontiff." The "Holy See," the "Chair of St. Peter," the "Roman Church,"
were alone alluded to. First and alas! too manifest signs of coldness in
the eyes of him who knew the nature and character of France! Others
might obey through duty, might allow themselves to be governed by
principle--France, never! She must be ruled by an individual, she must
love him that governs her, else she can never obey.
These weaknesses should at least have been hidden
in the shadow of the sanctuary, to await the time in which some sincere
and honest solution of the misunderstanding could be given. But no!
parliaments took hold of it, national vanity was identified with it. A
strange spectacle was now seen. A people the most Catholic in the world;
kings who called themselves the Eldest Sons of the Church and who were
really such at heart; grave and profoundly Christian magistrates,
bishops, and priests, though in the depths of their heart attached to
Catholic unity,--all barricading themselves against the head of the
Church; all digging trenches and building ramparts, that his
words might not reach the Faithful before being handled and examined,
and the laics convinced that they contained nothing false, hostile or
dangerous. (Right Reverend Emile Bougaud, The Life of Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque. Published in 1890 by Benziger Brothers. Re-printed by TAN Books and Publishers, 1990, pp. 24-29.)
22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are
strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to
universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the
Church. -- Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, "Tuas libenter," Dec. 21, 1863. (Proposition condemned by Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors,
December 8, 1864; see also two appendices below, reprised from five
days ago to drive home the point that no one can sift through the words
of a true pope to "determine" their orthodoxy as popes cannot err on
matters of Faith and Morals.)
Contrasting Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's False Teaching on Judaism with the Teaching and Praxis of the Catholic Church
“It is of course possible to
read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does
not point quite unequivocally to Christ. And if Jews cannot see the
promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their
part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the
tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of
Jesus. Jesus brings a new meaning to these texts – yet it is he who
first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance. There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the
Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he
said. And there are also good reasons for referring it to him – that is
what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.” (Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, God and the World, p. 209.)
In its work, the Biblical Commission could not
ignore the contemporary context, where the shock of the Shoah has put
the whole question under a new light. Two main problems are posed: Can
Christians, after all that has happened, still claim in good conscience
to be the legitimate heirs of Israel's Bible? Have they the right to
propose a Christian interpretation of this Bible, or should they not
instead, respectfully and humbly, renounce any claim that, in the light
of what has happened, must look like a usurpation? The second question
follows from the first: In its presentation of the Jews and the Jewish
people, has not the New Testament itself contributed to creating a
hostility towards the Jewish people that provided a support for the
ideology of those who wished to destroy Israel? The Commission set about
addressing those two questions. It is clear that a Christian rejection
of the Old Testament would not only put an end to Christianity itself as
indicated above, but, in addition, would prevent the fostering of
positive relations between Christians and Jews, precisely because they
would lack common ground. In the light of what has happened,
what ought to emerge now is a new respect for the Jewish interpretation
of the Old Testament. On this subject, the Document says two things.
First it declares that “the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible
one, in continuity with the Jewish Scriptures of the Second Temple
period, a reading analogous to the Christian reading, which developed in
parallel fashion” (no. 22). It adds that Christians can learn a great
deal from a Jewish exegesis practised for more than 2000 years; in
return, Christians may hope that Jews can profit from Christian
exegetical research (ibid.). I think this analysis will prove useful for
the pursuit of Judeo-Christian dialogue, as well as for the interior
formation of Christian consciousness. (Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, Preface to The Jewish People and Their Scriptures in the Christian Bible.)
is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not
directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ.
And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is
not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity
of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and
the figure of Jesus. Jesus brings a new meaning to these texts – yet
it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and
significance. There are perfectly good reasons, then, for
denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that
is not what he said. And there are also good reasons for referring it to him – that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.” (Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, God and the World, p. 209.)
To the religious leaders present this afternoon, I
wish to say that the particular contribution of religions to the quest
for peace lies primarily in the wholehearted, united search for God.
Ours is the task of proclaiming and witnessing that the Almighty is
present and knowable even when he seems hidden from our sight, that he
acts in our world for our good, and that a society’s future is marked
with hope when it resonates in harmony with his divine order. It is
God’s dynamic presence that draws hearts together and ensures unity. In
fact, the ultimate foundation of unity among persons lies in the
perfect oneness and universality of God, who created man and woman in
his image and likeness in order to draw us into his own divine life so
that all may be one. ("Pope" Benedict XVI, Courtesy visit to the President of the State of Israel at the presidential palace in Jerusalem, May 11, 2009.)
9. Christians and Jews share to a great extent a common spiritual
patrimony, they pray to the same Lord, they have the same roots, and yet
they often remain unknown to each other. It is our duty, in response
to God’s call, to strive to keep open the space for dialogue, for
reciprocal respect, for growth in friendship, for a common witness in
the face of the challenges of our time, which invite us to cooperate for
the good of humanity in this world created by God, the Omnipotent and
Merciful. (Ratzinger/Benedict at Rome synagogue: ‘May these wounds be healed forever!’ )
Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of
belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits
and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only
with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the
sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal
tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the
maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to
reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)
The same applies to the notion of Fraternity which
they found on the love of common interest or, beyond all philosophies
and religions, on the mere notion of humanity, thus embracing with an
equal love and tolerance all human beings and their miseries, whether
these are intellectual, moral, or physical and temporal. But
Catholic doctrine tells us that the primary duty of charity does not lie
in the toleration of false ideas, however sincere they may be, nor in
the theoretical or practical indifference towards the errors and vices
in which we see our brethren plunged, but in the zeal for their
intellectual and moral improvement as well as for their material
well-being. Catholic doctrine further tells us that love for our
neighbor flows from our love for God, Who is Father to all, and goal of
the whole human family; and in Jesus Christ whose members we are, to the
point that in doing good to others we are doing good to Jesus Christ
Himself. Any other kind of love is sheer illusion, sterile and fleeting.
Indeed, we have the human experience of
pagan and secular societies of ages past to show that concern for common
interests or affinities of nature weigh very little against the
passions and wild desires of the heart. No, Venerable Brethren, there is
no genuine fraternity outside Christian charity. Through the love of
God and His Son Jesus Christ Our Saviour, Christian charity embraces all
men, comforts all, and leads all to the same faith and same heavenly
By separating fraternity from Christian charity thus understood, Democracy, far from being a progress, would mean a disastrous step backwards for civilization. If,
as We desire with all Our heart, the highest possible peak of well
being for society and its members is to be attained through fraternity
or, as it is also called, universal solidarity, all minds must be united
in the knowledge of Truth, all wills united in morality, and all hearts
in the love of God and His Son Jesus Christ. But this union is
attainable only by Catholic charity, and that is why Catholic charity
alone can lead the people in the march of progress towards the ideal
civilization. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge, Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)
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.)
POPE: We are unable to
favor this movement [of Zionism]. We cannot prevent the Jews from going
to Jerusalem—but we could never sanction it. The ground of Jerusalem, if
it were not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus
Christ. As the head of the Church I cannot answer you otherwise. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people.
HERZL: [The conflict
between Rome and Jerusalem, represented by the one and the other of us,
was once again under way. At the outset I tried to be conciliatory. I
said my little piece. . . . It didn’t greatly impress him. Jerusalem was
not to be placed in Jewish hands.] And its present status, Holy Father?
POPE: I know, it is disagreeable to see the Turks in possession of our
Holy Places. We simply have to put up with it. But to sanction the
Jewish wish to occupy these sites, that we cannot do.
HERZL: [I said that we based our movement solely on the sufferings
of the Jews, and wished to put aside all religious issues].
POPE: Yes, but we, but I as the head of the Catholic Church, cannot do this. One of two things will likely happen. Either the Jews will retain their ancient faith and continue to await
the Messiah whom we believe has already appeared—in which case they are
denying the divinity of Jesus and we cannot assist them. Or else they
will go there with no religion whatever, and then we can have nothing at
all to do with them. The Jewish faith was the foundation of our own,
but it has been superceded by the teachings of Christ, and we cannot
admit that it still enjoys any validity. The Jews who should have been
the first to acknowledge Jesus Christ have not done so to this day.
HERZL: [It was on the tip of my tongue to remark, “It happens in every
family: no one believes in his own relative.” But, instead, I said:]
Terror and persecution were not precisely the best means for converting
the Jews. [His reply had an element of grandeur in its simplicity:]
POPE: Our Lord came without power. He came in peace. He persecuted no
one. He was abandoned even by his apostles. It was only later that he
attained stature. It took three centuries for the Church to evolve. The
Jews therefore had plenty of time in which to accept his divinity
without duress or pressure. But they chose not to do so, and they have
not done it yet.
HERZL: But, Holy
Father, the Jews are in a terrible plight. I do not know if Your
Holiness is aware of the full extent of their tragedy. We need a land
for these harried people.
POPE: Must it be Jerusalem?
HERZL: We are not asking for Jerusalem, but for Palestine—for only the secular land.
POPE: We cannot be in favor of it.
[Editor Lowenthal interjects here] Here unrelenting replacement
theology is plainly upheld as the norm of the Roman Catholic Church.
Further, this confession, along with the whole tone of the Pope in his
meeting with Herzl, indicates the perpetuation of a doctrinal emphasis
that has resulted in centuries of degrading behavior toward the Jews.
However, this response has the “grandeur” of total avoidance of that
which Herzl had intimated, namely that the abusive reputation of Roman
Catholicism toward the Jews was unlikely to foster conversion. Further,
if, “It took three centuries for the Church to evolve,” it was that very
same period of time that it took for the Church to consolidate and
launch its thrust of anti-Semitism through the following centuries.
HERZL: Does Your Holiness know the situation of the Jews?
POPE: Yes, from my days in Mantua, where there are Jews. I have always
been in friendly relations with Jews. Only the other evening two Jews
were here to see me. There are other bonds than those of religion:
social intercourse, for example, and philanthropy. Such bonds we do not
refuse to maintain with the Jews. Indeed we also pray for them, that
their spirit see the light. This very day the Church is celebrating the
feast of an unbeliever who became converted in a miraculous manner—on
the road to Damascus. And so if you come to Palestine and settle your people there, we will be ready with churches and priests to baptize all of you. (Marvin Lowenthal, The Diaries of Theodore Herzl.)
28.That He completed His work on the gibbet of the
Cross is the unanimous teaching of the holy Fathers who assert that the
Church was born from the side of our Savior on the Cross like a new Eve,
mother of all the living. 
"And it is now," says the great St. Ambrose, speaking of the pierced
side of Christ, "that it is built, it is now that it is formed, it is
now that is .... molded, it is now that it is created . . . Now it is
that arises a spiritual house, a holy priesthood."  One who reverently examines this venerable teaching will easily discover the reasons on which it is based.
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  -the Law and the Gospel were together in force;  but on the gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees,  fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross,  establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. 
"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." 
30. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death,  in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; 
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"; 
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.)
Let that be your judgment about the
synagogue, too. For they brought the books of Moses and the prophets
along with them into the synagogue, not to honor them but to outrage
them with dishonor. When they say that Moses and the prophets knew not
Christ and said nothing about his coming, what greater outrage could
they do to those holy men than to accuse them of failing to recognize
their Master, than to say that those saintly prophets are partners of
their impiety? And so it is that we must hate both them and
their synagogue all the more because of their offensive treatment of
those holy men." (Saint John Chrysostom, Fourth Century, A.D., Saint John Chrysostom: Eight Homilies Against the Jews.)
Many, I know, respect the Jews and think
that their present way of life is a venerable one. This is why I hasten
to uproot and tear out this deadly opinion. I said that the synagogue is
no better than a theater and I bring forward a prophet as my witness.
Surely the Jews are not more deserving of belief than their prophets.
"You had a harlot's brow; you became shameless before all". Where a
harlot has set herself up, that place is a brothel. But the synagogue is
not only a brothel and a theater; it also is a den of robbers and a
lodging for wild beasts. Jeremiah said: "Your house has become
for me the den of a hyena". He does not simply say "of wild beast", but
"of a filthy wild beast", and again: "I have abandoned my house, I have
cast off my inheritance". But when God forsakes a people, what
hope of salvation is left? When God forsakes a place, that place becomes
the dwelling of demons.
(2) But at any rate the Jews say that they,
too, adore God. God forbid that I say that. No Jew adores God! Who says
so? The Son of God says so. For he said: "If you were to know my
Father, you would also know me. But you neither know me nor do you know
my Father". Could I produce a witness more trustworthy than the Son of
(3) If, then, the Jews fail to know the Father, if
they crucified the Son, if they thrust off the help of the Spirit, who
should not make bold to declare plainly that the synagogue is a dwelling
of demons? God is not worshipped there. Heaven forbid! From now
on it remains a place of idolatry. But still some people pay it honor
as a holy place. (Saint John Chrysostom: Eight Homilies Against the Jews)
From this passage the learned translators of the Rheims New Testament, in their note, justly observe, "That,
in matters of religion, in praying, hearing their sermons, presence at
their service, partaking of their sacraments, and all other
communicating with them in spiritual things, it is a great and damnable
sin to deal with them." And if this be the case with all in general, how much more with those who are well instructed and better versed in their religion than others? For their doing any of these things must be a much greater crime than in ignorant people, because they know their duty better. (Bishop George Hay, The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion.)
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.)