Rabbis, Rabbis, Get a Grip

We are surrounded by veritable Mister Magoos. That is, we live in a world of near-sighted people who cannot see far enough in front of their noses to recognize the truth when it is right in front of them.

Obviously, there are many Catholics all up and down and right straight across the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divide who get immersed in the minutiae of current events in the world as to become indignant when anyone might suggest that their efforts to “solve” problems, no matter how well-meaning those efforts may be, will always come to naught as they do not take account of remote and proximate root causes and neglect the supernatural almost entirely. This is a point that was made by Pope Pius XI in his first encyclical letter, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.

Several passages from Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio were contained in the expanded version of American Pots and Russian Kettles that was posted late yesterday afternoon. Here is the paragraph that is most pertinent to the point made just above:

Because men have forsaken God and Jesus Christ, they have sunk to the depths of evil. They waste their energies and consume their time and efforts in vain sterile attempts to find a remedy for these ills, but without even being successful in saving what little remains from the existing ruin. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

Thus it is that many Catholics believe that they can salvage what remains from the exist ruins of what has been wrought the false, naturalistic, Pelagian, anti-Incarnational and religiously indifferentist premises of the modern civil state, including here in the United States of America, hoping against hope that the “next” election will “bring results” even though the only thing that will happen after the “next” election is that the naturalists who get elected will exercise caution for two years to help them get re-elected two years thereafter.

I know that no one wants to believe that this is so. I know. I know. I might as well beat my head into brick wall repeatedly that write this over and over again with all manner of empirical proof that this has been the case from the beginning of this nation and is one of the reasons why our social problems multiply. A world awash in the falsehoods of “freedom of speech” and “freedom of religion” winds up being the slave of its own blind passions while those who contradict the prevailing ethos are considered to “intolerant” and “bigoted” “haters.” The number of Catholics who understand that there can be no “improvement” in a world of naturalism absent the conversion of souls to the Catholic Faith is miniscule to the point of being almost entirely invisible.

Similarly, “conservative,” “Motu-oriented” and “resist while recognize” Catholics who as of yet attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism in the false belief that they represent the Catholic Church cling to the hope that they can “work from within” to “save the Church” from the ruins of conciliarism. This ignores the simple fact that one can no more work to “save” the counterfeit church of conciliarism from its false premises that he can to work within the Anglican sect to “save” it from its own heresies, blasphemies, sacrileges and apostasies, which must perforce increase over time as this sect is an instrument of the devil to deceive souls that it is a legitimate representative of a Christian “tradition.” The counterfeit church of conciliarism is just another false religious sect that is being used by the devil to deceive “Mister Magoo” Catholics into thinking that “things are not that bad” or that “they will just get better over time.” That which is false, that which is evil can never bring forth good fruit. Never.

Well-meaning Catholics in the conciliar structures are not alone in believing in things that are simply not true.

There are a substantial number of Talmudic rabbis who, despite all of the evidence provided by “Saint John Paul II,” Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis that they have been their best friends and enablers, especially by stating that the Old Covenant God made with Moses remains perfectly valid and has not been superseded by the New and Eternal Covenant instituted by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on Maundy Thursday and ratified by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday, remain suspicious of the “true” intentions of the men who they believe to be representatives of the Catholic Church.

Consider the following report, written for Haertz newspaper by a relative of Mister Magoo, a woman who is clueless as to how Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI catered to the needs of the Talmudists at every turn, including justifying what he called was “defining” the Church’s relationship with the “faith of Israel in a new way”:

MILAN – As the pope was preparing for his trip to Israel this week, Italy’s rabbis seemed to agree about the importance of carrying on a dialogue with Catholics, but not as much about what “dialogue” means.
 
Francis I, who is traveling to Israel, Jordan and the West Bank in the company of a rabbi and a Muslim community leader – Abraham Skorka and Omar Abboud, both fellow Argentinians – has described his trip as a pilgrimage of “communion, hope and peace.”
When hosting a delegation of American Jewish Committee leaders in the Vatican in February, the pontiff praised interfaith ties, and “the heritage of our mutual knowledge, esteem and friendship.”
 
Rome’s chief rabbi, Riccardo Di Segni, says he is “cautiously optimistic” about the visit, but warns that interfaith dialogue is a delicate issue “that should always be approached with caution.”
 
Since there is no chief rabbi of all of Italy, and Rome has by far the largest Jewish community, Di Segni is de facto the country’s most prominent Jewish leader. He has met Francis on several occasions.
 
“There’s room [for Catholic and Jews] to discuss important issues,” the rabbi told Haaretz in a phone interview. However, he added, while he is more than keen “on good neighborly relations” with the Vatican, located just blocks away from Rome’s historical Jewish ghetto, “from the theological point of view, there is nothing to discuss.”
 
This is no minor issue. Indeed, “theological dialogue” – a term that refers to a range of subjects, and potentially involves a confrontation on faith-based morality and a joint discussion of the Torah – is precisely what the Vatican seems interested in.
 
In truth, there are different ways to see interfaith dialogue.
 
On the one hand, there are “secular” ties and conversations between two or more religious communities – which, in the case of Catholics and Jews, entail joining forces against anti-Semitism or discussing the historical role of the Vatican during the Holocaust.
 
On the other hand, there are quintessentially “religious” topics, such as the Bible, which is of great importance to both Jews and Christians; the way the Catholic Church sees the fact that Jews do not accept Jesus as their messiah; and whether Jewish scholars perceive Jesus’ teachings as at all compatible with halakha, traditional Jewish law.
 
The previous pope, Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger), a guardian of Catholic orthodoxy, was believed to be ill-disposed toward extending interfaith dialogue to the realm of doctrine.
 
But his successor is perceived as being more open-minded theologically.
 
Francis himself has said the dialogue between Christians and Jews must have “a theological foundation” and go “beyond mutual respect and appreciation.”
 
For his part, Cardinal Kurt Koch, who heads the Vatican’s Commission for Religious Relations with Jews, said earlier this year that he aims to “expand the theological dialogue,” which he described as “the [main] challenge for the future.”
 
Jewish views
 
On the Jewish side, some American rabbis are vocal supporters of discussing doctrinal issues – among them David Rosen, the American Jewish Committee’s international director of interreligious affairs.
 
When it comes to Italian rabbis, though, few are open to discussing such matters – at least in depth or in public.
 
Recently, Pagine Ebraiche, an Italian Jewish monthly, published a survey conducted among leading local rabbis, concerning their expectations of the new pope. Most preferred to focus on good relations and coexistence, rather than on religion per se.
 
Only Milan’s chief rabbi, Alfonso Arbib, mentioned theology. Arbib said he appreciated Francis’ implication that so-called substitution theology – the long-held Catholic belief that the New Testament in some way “replaced” the Torah – “is to be overcome and that coexistence without expectations of conversion is possible.”
 
The dominant perception, a few scholars acknowledge privately, is that discussion with gentiles of religious issues, such as Torah and Jewish law, makes Jewish Italy uncomfortable these days. There are a few scholars and rabbis who support such discourse, but they prefer to conduct it quietly.
 
Haaretz has talked with two such figures, both of whom asked to remain anonymous due to the controversy over the issue.
 
They agree to some extent that discussing certain aspects of halakha with Catholics is necessary (for instance, as part of an effort to show them that Jesus did not reject its precepts), but they also say that whenever the topic comes up in Jewish circles, it raises eyebrows.
 
Despite the current climate, it was in Italy that the dialogue between Orthodox Jewry and the Catholic Church – including on doctrinal issues, as well – first began to gain momentum in recent years.
 
John Paul II’s visit to Rome’s main synagogue in 1986 – the first visit of a modern pope to a Jewish house of worship – was perhaps the most iconic moment.
 
What is less known, perhaps, is that the diplomatic work – and theological dialogue – that helped to pave the way for that breakthrough visit had started a few years earlier, in Milan.
 
In the early 1980s, Giuseppe Laras, who was the city’s chief rabbi at the time, and (the late) Archbishop Carlo Maria Martini laid the groundwork for an era of unprecedented good relations between Catholics and Jews under Pope John Paul II’s pontificate. Since both of them were sophisticated biblical scholars and liberal-minded, they didn’t shy away from broaching theological issues.
 
Since then, however, both the Jewish and the Catholic landscapes in Italy have changed a lot.
 
The older generation of rabbis, including Laras, has been replaced by younger and stricter ones, with closer ties to Israel’s Chief Rabbinate.
 
Furthermore, some aspects of Benedict XVI’s pontificate sparked concern among Jews – for instance, when the pope re-introduced a prayer for the conversion of Jews in 2009.
 
That move prompted some of the most “dialogue-oriented” rabbis to protest publicly: Elia Richetti, the chief rabbi of Venice then, wrote an open letter, accusing the pope of setting interfaith dialogue back 50 years.
 
Interestingly enough, he chose to publish his letter in Popoli, the magazine of the Jesuits, the Catholic order to which Archbishop Martini belonged. While in that same letter Richetti announced that formal meetings between Catholic figures and Italian rabbis would be temporarily suspended in protest, the rumor was that a channel of communication was kept open with the archdiocese in Milan.
 
That incident was only partially forgotten when Di Segni invited Benedict XVI to visit Rome’s synagogue in 2010, after the Vatican made it clear that its official policy involved converting Jews to Christianity – but only at the end of days.
 
Di Segni’s view was that, as long as Catholics did not actively try to convert Jews, a prayer about converting them at the end of time posed no major obstacle.
 
“We have our own views about the end of times, they have theirs,” he says.
 
But it seems that after re-introduction of the controversial prayer, the decision to host the pope at the synagogue raised even the ire of rabbis keen on theological dialogue.
 
The truth is that, in an apparent paradox, Ratzinger’s hard line on doctrine made Jews who were skeptical to begin with about religious dialogue relatively comfortable, while those supporting such theological discourse were at odds with it.
 
Now, with Francis, the situation may be reversed.
 
The new pope hasn’t spoken much about doctrine yet.
 
But the fact that he is a Jesuit, and was the late Archbishop Martini’s favored candidate at the 2005 papal conclave, make some think his views will be more in line with Martini’s than Ratzinger’s.
The question is: Will Italy’s rabbis ready to answer the call? (No Warm and Fuzzies From Rabbi Riccardo di Segni.)
Rabbis, Rabbis, get a grip on reality, will you?
Efforts to make a Talmudic punching bag out of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI do this eighty-seven year-old Modernist grave injustices. Indeed, rabbis, you have calumniated Father Ratzinger, who has long been one of your best friends.
Indeed, Ratzinger/Benedict revised the Good Friday Prayer for the Jews in early-2008 precisely because Talmudic rabbis had pleaded with him to change or eliminate the prayer as found in the “Saint John XXIII” modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, referred to commonly as the “1962 Missal,” almost immediately after the false “pontiff” had issued Summorum Pontificum on July 7, 2007. It was to appease the Talmudists who had lobbied him personally that Ratzinger the Hegelian Contortionist rewrote the prayer himself. When released, however, the revised prayer caused a controversy of its very own, prompting Walter “Cardinal” Kasper and “Archbishop” Gianfranco Ravasi to explain it with the “pope’s” full knowledge and approval.Here is a little trip down memory lane:

The reformulated text no longer speaks about the conversion of the Jews as some Jewish critics wrongly affirm. The text is a prayer inspired by Saint Paul’s letter to the Romans, chapter 11, which is the very text that speaks also of the unbroken covenant. It takes up Paul’s eschatological hope that in the end of time all Israel will be saved. As a prayer the text lays all in the hands of God and not in ours. It says nothing about the how and when. Therefore there is nothing about missionary activities by which we may take Israel’s salvation in our hands. (“Cardinal” Kasper’s Letter to Rabbi Rosen)

We repeat: this is the Christian vision, and it is the hope of the Church that prays. It is not a programmatic proposal of theoretical adherence, nor is it a missionary strategy of conversion. It is the attitude characteristic of the prayerful invocation according to which one hopes also for the persons considered near to oneself, those dear and important, a reality that one maintains is precious and salvific. An important exponent of French culture in the 20th century, Julien Green, wrote that “it is always beautiful and legitimate to wish for the other what is for you a good or a joy: if you think you are offering a true gift, do not hold back your hand.” Of course, this must always take place in respect for freedom and for the different paths that the other adopts. But it is an expression of affection to wish for your brother what you consider a horizon of light and life. (“Archbishop” Gianfranco Ravasi, A Bishop and a Rabbi Defend the Prayer for the Salvation of the Jews.)

This means that the first pope, Saint Peter, was wrong to seek the conversion of the Jews as he preached on Pentecost Sunday following the descent of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, upon the Apostles and our dear Blessed Mother and others gathered in the same Upper Room in Jerusalem where Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ had instituted the Holy Priesthood and the Holy Eucharist fifty-three days before.

This means that Our Lord was wrong to have sought the conversion of Saul of Tarsus while he was on the road to Damascus to persecute more Christians there after presiding over the stoning of Saint Stephen the Protomartyr.

This means that Saint Vincent Ferrer was wrong to have sought the conversion of thousands upon thousands of Jews in the Iberian Peninsula and southern France in the early Fifteenth Century.

This means that Our Lady was wrong to have sought the conversion of the Catholic-hating Jew, Alphonse Ratisbonne, as she appeared to him as she does on the Miraculous Medal while Ratisbonne visited the Church of San Adrea delle Fratte on January 20, 1842.

This means that Pope Pius IX was wrong to have approved the plans of Father Maria-Alphonse Ratisbonne to leave the Society of Jesus to establish a mission in Palestine to seek the conversion of Jews.

Finally, this means that the Jews complaining about Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict having been a “hard liner” on Catholic doctrine as much infected with intellectual near-sightedness as are “conservatives,” Motumaniacs and “resist while recognize” adherents in the conciliar structures continue to be about the supposed “Pope of Tradition.”

For the record yet again, let it be stated that there is no room whatsoever between Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Jorge Mario Bergoglio concerning the Talmudists.

Both believe that the Old Covenant is valid.

Both believe that what they think is the Catholic Church has no mission to convert Jews.

Both have entered into synagogues and praise Talmudic Judaism.

Here are some concrete examples:

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.)

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.)

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)

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.)

When he came among you for the first time, as a Christian and as Pope, my Venerable Predecessor John Paul II, almost 24 years ago, wanted to make a decisive contribution to strengthening the good relations between our two communities, so as to overcome every misconception and prejudice.  My visit forms a part of the journey already begun, to confirm and deepen it.  With sentiments of heartfelt appreciation, I come among you to express to you the esteem and the affection which the Bishop and the Church of Rome, as well as the entire Catholic Church, have towards this Community and all Jewish communities around the world.

2. The teaching of the Second Vatican Council has represented for Catholics a clear landmark to which constant reference is made in our attitude and our relations with the Jewish people, marking a new and significant stage.  The Council gave a strong impetus to our irrevocable commitment to pursue the path of dialogue, fraternity and friendship, a journey which has been deepened and developed in the last forty years, through important steps and significant gestures.  Among them, I should mention once again the historic visit by my Venerable Predecessor to this Synagogue on 13 April 1986, the numerous meetings he had with Jewish representatives, both here in Rome and during his Apostolic Visits throughout the world, the Jubilee Pilgrimage which he made to the Holy Land in the year 2000, the various documents of the Holy See which, following the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration Nostra Aetate, have made helpful contributions to the increasingly close relations between  Catholics and Jews.  I too, in the course of my Pontificate, have wanted to demonstrate my closeness to and my affection for the people of the Covenant.  I cherish in my heart each moment of the pilgrimage that I had the joy of making to the Holy Land in May of last year, along with the memories of numerous meetings with Jewish Communities and Organizations, in particular my visits to the Synagogues of Cologne and New York.

Furthermore, the Church has not failed to deplore the failings of her sons and daughters, begging forgiveness for all that could in any way have contributed to the scourge of anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism (cf. Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah, 16 March 1998).  May these wounds be healed forever!  The heartfelt prayer which Pope John Paul II offered at the Western Wall on 26 March 2000 comes back to my mind, and it calls forth a profound echo in our hearts: “God of our Fathers, you chose Abraham and his descendants to bring your Name to the nations: we are deeply saddened by the behaviour of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant.” (Ratzinger at Rome synagogue: ‘May these wounds be healed forever!’ )

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!’ )

Ratzinger the “hard liner” on Catholic doctrine?

Ratzinger the hard-core heretic is more like it.

In complete defiance of the teaching of the Catholic Church from the time that Saint Peter preached his first Urbi et Orbi address on Pentecost Sunday, both Ratzinger and Bergoglio reaffirm, as noted above, the “enduring validity” of the Mosaic Covenant.

Bergoglio, who has even coauthored a book his pro-abortion, pro-perversity Talmudic rabbi pal from Argentina, Abraham Skorka, who is accompanying the false “pontiff” on his upcoming visit to the Holy Land, clearly stated a heretical proposition when he wrote the following in Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013:

247. We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked, for “the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29). The Church, which shares with Jews an important part of the sacred Scriptures, looks upon the people of the covenant and their faith as one of the sacred roots of her own Christian identity (cf. Rom 11:16-18). As Christians, we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion; nor do we include the Jews among those called to turn from idols and to serve the true God (cf. 1 Thes 1:9). With them, we believe in the one God who acts in history, and with them we accept his revealed word.

248. Dialogue and friendship with the children of Israel are part of the life of Jesus’ disciples. The friendship which has grown between us makes us bitterly and sincerely regret the terrible persecutions which they have endured, and continue to endure, especially those that have involved Christians.

249. God continues to work among the people of the Old Covenant and to bring forth treasures of wisdom which flow from their encounter with his word. For this reason, the Church also is enriched when she receives the values of Judaism. While it is true that certain Christian beliefs are unacceptable to Judaism, and that the Church cannot refrain from proclaiming Jesus as Lord and Messiah, there exists as well a rich complementarity which allows us to read the texts of the Hebrew Scriptures together and to help one another to mine the riches of God’s word. We can also share many ethical convictions and a common concern for justice and the development of peoples. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013. See Jorge and Oscar’s False Gospel of False Joy, part one.)

Both Ratzinger and Bergoglio thus reject the following dogmatic pronouncement, Cantate Domino, made at the Council of Florence, which met under the infallible guidance and protection of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, on February 4, 1442, and the reiteration thereof by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, June 28, 1943:

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.)

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

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

While some of the Talmudic rabbis quoted in the Haaretz article play the part of Mister Magoos by refusing to see what a good friend Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict has always been to them, the truth of the matter is that the conciiar “popes,” including Ratzinger and Bergoglio, have actually been their worst enemies as these heretics have refused to seek with urgency the conversion of those who deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. This why men such as Joseph Alois Ratzinger and Jorge Mario Bergoglio are the biggest anti-Semites on the face of this earth as they refuse to do what Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself did when seeking the conversion of the fire-breathing anti-Catholic zealot, Saul of Tarsus, whilst He was on the road to Damascus after having presiding over the stoning of Saint Stephen the Protomartyr, whose prayers at the time of his martyrdom and from Heaven won the conversion of his blaspheming muderer.

The Catholic Church wills the good of all people, including the Jews, the ultimate expression of which is the salvation of their immortal souls. She does, however, hate all false religions, and in this sense she is indeed and must ever be “anti-Jewish” as she is anti-Protestant and anti-Mohammedan and anti-Buddhist and anti-Hindu and anti-every other false religion.

Harsh?

Get over the squeamishness and sentimentality born of Judeo-Masonic naturalism.

It is, of course, a very telling commentary that some of the rabbis quoted in Haaretz report care more about fidelity to their false religion than the conciliarists care about fidelity to the authentic patrimony of the Catholic Church.

God hates all false religions. He loathes them. He wants them eradicated from the face of this earth as their adherents are converted to the true Faith. The Catholic Church, ever faithful to Him as she is guided by Him infallibly, must hate what he hates: sin and error and falsehood. This is not an option for a Catholic. We must hate sin in our own lives. We must seek to root it out as we cooperate with the graces won for us by Our Lord on the wood of the Holy Cross that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, the Mediatrix of All Graces. We must hate the spread of sin in the world under cover of the civil law and in the midst of popular culture. We must make no conscious compromise with error or falsehood. We must be earnest about planting seeds for the conversion of all non-Catholics to the true Faith, outside of which there is no salvation and without with there can be no true social order.

This is, of course, a chastisement for our sins, for our own infidelities, for our own lukewarmness, for our own lack of steadfastness in prayer, especially to the Mother of God, who has been, of course, blasphemed by Jorge Mario Bergoglio. We need to pray many Rosaries of reparation, especially as we approach Bergolgio’s trip to the Holy Land in just eight day.

We need, therefore, to make much reparation for these sins as we seek always to make reparation for our own sins as we entrust to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary the need of the present moment.

We must, of course, continue to remember that this is the time that God has appointed from all eternity for us to be alive. He has work for us to do. Let us do this work with courage and valor as we never count the cost of being humiliated for the sake of defending the integrity of Faith, as we never cease our prayers for the conversion of all people, including those who adhere to the Talmud and Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his fellow conciliarists, to the true Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

Our Lady of the Rosary, 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 Ubaldus, pray for us.