Anticlimactic “Beatification” For An Antipope

by Thomas A. Droleskey

There but for the grace of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ I would have been amongst the multitudes in Saint Peter’s Square yesterday, May 1, 2011, Low Sunday, for the “beatification” of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. I was in that square on many occasions during the false “pontificate” of the now “beatified” “pontiff” from Poland.

Indeed, it was on Palm Sunday, April 9, 1995, that I was sitting up amongst the cardinals near the “papal” table where the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service was being staged in Latin and Italian by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II. I had obtained the choicest of tickets for the “papal” events of Holy Week in 1995 through the courtesy extended to me by a high-ranking official from the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who liked my articles in The Wanderer. And it was inside of the Basilica of Saint Peter at what I thought was the Easter Vigil “Mass” six days later, Holy Saturday, April 15, 1995, that I sat directly in back o of one Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger, with whom I shook hands at the ceremonial “sign of peace.”

Yes, indeed, my good and very few readers, I could have been present yesterday if others had not prayed for me and still others had entreated me personally to look into the true state of Holy Mother Church in this time of apostasy and betrayal as I was a papalator of the first order. Yes, my papalotry had cooled in its ardor in the wake of the granting of permission for the use of altar girls in 1994. However, it was still heady stuff to be sitting amongst men who I thought to be cardinals of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, including the man who would wind up “succeeding” Wojtyla/John Paul II ten years later. God will not be mocked, however. The bald spot on the back of the top of my rather swollen head got very badly burned from the bright, burning rays of the Mediterranean sun beating down on it that Palm Sunday in 1995. My head throbbed for weeks thereafter. God was punishing me for being so puffed up about assisting at a false liturgical service conducted by a man who mocked Him as he blasphemed Him and reinvented and distorted and misrepresented His Sacred Deposit of Faith over the course of the 9,666 days of his reign (October 16, 1978, to April 2, 2005).

Thanks be to the graces sent to me, a terrible sinner, by Our Lord through the loving hands of His Most Blessed Mother, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, through absolutely no merits of my own, I was not present yesterday at the “beatification” of another conciliar revolutionary. This is truly miraculous as I projected my own fondest, deeply-held desires for the restoration of the Church into the mind and heart of “Pope” John Paul II from the very moment that he stepped foot onto the balcony of Saint Peter’s Basilica late in the evening, Rome time, on Monday, October 16, 1978, as I sat with my parents in their living room in Harlingen, Texas, before flying the next day to resume teaching at Illinois State University following a brief semester hiatus. Fresh with misplaced, delusional enthusiasm, I even began to organize a major conference to discuss the impact of “election” of John Paul II on world politics. That conference took place at Illinois State University, which even funded it, believe it or not, on Tuesday, April 24, 1979, and featured scholars that flew in from around the country.

One of those who spoke, though, the late Dr. Thomas Molnar (a Catholic survivor of Buchenwald), who was brought in under the auspices of the Institute for Intercollegiate Studies at the suggestion of Dr. John C. Rao, who worked for the institute at that time, was not as enthusiastic as I, who served as the conference’s host and moderator, was about the new “pontificate.” Dr. Molnar gave a scathing critique of the Ostpolitik of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI that resulted in the betrayal of the Primate of his homeland, Hungary, the late Josef Cardinal Mindszenty. Dr. Molnar noted that the man who engineered this betrayal, Jean “Cardinal” Villot, the conciliar Vatican’s Secretary of State from 1969 to 1979, was an appeaser of Communism and a Modernist, explaining that the man John Paul II had just appointed to succeed Villot at the Vatican Secretary of State following the latter’s death on March 9, 1979, the then Archbishop Agostino Casaroli, had actually helped to arrange the betrayal of Cardinal Mindszenty as Paul VI “regularized” diplomatic relations with the then communist countries of Hungary and Yugoslavia.

Perhaps most presciently, Dr. Molnar, a professor of philosophy at Brooklyn College at the time, said that Archbishop Casaroli was an admirer of the work, such as it was, of the late Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., whose apostate beliefs were even beyond those of Modernism as he held to a vision of the “cosmic Christ” rather than to a belief in the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity made Man in the Virginal and Immaculate Womb of His Most Blessed Mother in Whose hands and wounded side Saint Thomas the Apostle placed his own fingers and hand on the very first Low Sunday. Dr. Molnar knew exactly what he was talking about even though I did not grasp it all at the time. I did listen, though. And it was just a scant two years later that Casaroli praised the pantheist work of Teilhard de Chardin for being the inspiration of “Pope” John Paul II’s message of “be not afraid” which was meant, Casaroli said to embrace “culture, civilization and progress:”

In 1981, on the 100th anniversary of Teilhard’s birth, speculation erupted about a possible rehabilitation. It was fueled by a letter published in L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, by the then-Cardinal Secretary of State Agostino Casaroli, who praised the “astonishing resonance of his research, as well as the brilliance of his personality and richness of his thinking.” Casaroli asserted that Teilhard had anticipated John Paul II’s call to “be not afraid,” embracing “culture, civilization and progress.” (Benedict cites Teilhardian vision of the cosmos as a ‘living host’)

Although the progressive journalist who wrote this report, John Allen, Jr., of the National Catholic Reporter, noted that Ratzinger/Benedict has been of two minds (a trait that he exhibits on any number of topics and writers as his rejection of Scholasticism leads him to contradict himself endlessly and to find value in error and heresy) about the work of Teilhard de Chardin, it is nevertheless interesting to note that Chardin has been a major influence on both Wojtyla/John Paul II and Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.

Modernism is, of course, a mixture of truth and error. This is what made it so difficult for me to see through the actor Wojtyla/John Paul II’s guise and why I looked the other way at events such as Assisi I until the middle to the latter part of the 1990s. Even Wojtyla/John Paul II’s devotion to Our Lady that was exalted by Ratzinger/Benedict yesterday in his “homily” was based in a false conception of the living Rosary that had been started by Pauline Jaricot in honor of Saint Philomena and a false understanding of Total Marian Consecration that he had learned from a Modernist named Jan Tyranowski in Poland when he was a teenager:

Like Focolare, other syncretic sects have received, or are in the process of receiving, canonical status, allowing them to masquerade as Catholic religious orders, complete with Statutes, community life, vows and even seminaries. The Neocatechumenate alone, founded by a lay man and ex-nun, has produced 196 priests from its Redemptoris Mater diocesan seminar in Rome and more than 1,000 from its 50 seminaries across the world. Besides the priests being developed by this and other sects, many other clergy live their spirituality. Bishops have already come from their heretical ranks, ordained by John Paul II and favoured with privileged positions, some within the Roman Curia and on Pontifical Councils. It is only logical to assume that they could produce a pope, loyal only to his particular “church” or movement. The ecclesial movements comprises priests, religious, single and married laity–each movement a parallel or an anti-Church within the bosom of the Catholic Church

But we don’t have to look to the future for a pope produced by a lay movement. Pope John Paul himself was the “product” and progenitor of dynamic lay groups.” In 1940, Karol Wojtyla, aged 19, fell under the sway of a Polish rationalist and self-taught psychologist, Jan Tyranowski, who had “developed his own spirituality” and had the reputation of a “mystic.” Quite in line with Deweyite and Jungian adult church principles, Tyranowski preached a gnostic experiential religion; “inner liberation from the faith,” i.e., from Catholicism; and “transformation of personality from within,” i.e., spiritual growth, through the “friendship” of a community. He also preached a life of service, especially to those of one’s community, as the fruit of the “practice and the presence of God.” “To bring young people into this same faith”–not Catholicism–he led weekly discussion meetings for young men he recruited, “in which theological questions were argued.” (Questioning the Faith is called “critical thinking” today.)

Tyranowski formed the Living Rosary, which shared many of the characteristics of modern lay movements. Its weekly meetings were run by lay people in homes, not by priests in parish halls. By 1943, there were 60 “animates” who reported to Tyranowski. One of these group leaders was Karol Wojtyla.

It is strange that Chiara Lubich also termed her group “the living Rosary.” Did she get the idea from Bishop Wojtyla, whom Focolare got to know in Poland? “The Living Rosary as created by Jan Tyranowski consisted of groups of fifteen young men, each of which was led b a more mature youngster who received personal spiritual direction … from the mystically gifted tailor.” The difference between the two “living” Rosaries is that Tyranowoski’s groups represented the decades of the Rosary, whilst Lubitch’s members were Hail Marys.

The inner transformation taught by Tyranowski is what New Agers today call a change in consciousness or paradigm shift, in which one synthesizes two opposing ideas, such as believing one is a good Catholic even if holding superstitious or occult beliefs. It is similar to Dewey’s merger of nature and grace or Jung’s “wholeness.” It is an occult, gnostic, kabbalistic method of producing a personal shift in values that engenders social transformation. Inner transformation led to religious orders abandoning the supernatural focus of Catholicism for naturalistic and social activism after Vatican II.

Pope John Paul II’s acceptance of the gnostic philosophy of the sects is also the product of the theatrical experiences of his youth. Theatre for Karol was “an experience of community”; but more than that, it was a serious training in gnostic transformation by Mieczyslaw Kotlarczyk, director of the Rhapsodic Theatre, which he co-founded with Karol. This Theatre, with its “theme of consciousness,” provided Wojtyla’s “initiation to phenomenology.” Kotlarczyk, who lived for some time in the Wojtyla home, tutored Karol in his method from the time Karol was sixteen until he joined the seminary six years later. He created a “theater of the inner world” to present “universal truths and universal moral values, which . . . offered the world the possibility of authentic transformation.” Plot, costumes and props were not important. Instead, speech–the “word”–was his focus, the goal being to use it to transform the consciousness of the audience (and actor). Hence Kotlarczyk, insisted on every word being pronounced just so.

That this was a training in the kabbalistic, occult use of words became clear when Kotlarczyk’s book, The Art of the Living Word: Diction, Expression, Magic, was published in 1975 by the Papal Gregorian University in Rome. Cardinal Wojtyla penned the preface to this book in which Kotlarczyk listed the sources of his ideas. The included the writings of several occultists and theosophists, amongst them some of the foremost kabbalists and occultists of modern times: Russian Mason Helena Blavatsky, founder of the Theosophical Society and the New Age Movement; French occultist Eliphas Levi (who influenced Blavatsky, Albert Pike, Grand Commander of Scottish Rite Masonry, and sorcerer Aleister Crowley, long-time head of the high Masonic Ordo Templi Orientis or OTO); and Rudolph Steiner. Illuminatus, Rosicrucian, theosophist, OTO member, Communist and founder of the Anthroposophical Society and Waldorf Schools. Theosophy had been condemned by the Church in 1919, the Holy Office stating one could not “read [theosophists’] books, daily papers, journals and writings.

Kotlarczyk believed he was an “archpriest of drama,” his living word method being a religion and “vocation,” with the actor as priest. As with theosophists who use the title “Master” for highly evolved humans who guide humanist, he called himself “Master of the Word.” He saw theater “as ritual” and “understood the liturgical character of theatrical action, . .. offering the possibility of entering into a new dimension. . . .” Theater could be “a way of perfection” if “the word” had absolute priority” over “externals and spectacles.”

Compare Kotlarczyk’s ideas with Anthroposophy or “Christian Illuminism,” which is a Luciferian initiation” that forms the enlightened or “deified” man with occult abilities. Anthroposophy teaches that occult knowledge, or the “inner meaning” of realities can be obtained through a “disciplined use of the arts, words, colour, music and eurhythmic (“universal harmony”), a way of dance that Steiner (1861-1925) created to express the inner meanings of sound. The explosion in the Church today of theatrics, “creative liturgy,” and eurhthmic-style”liturgical dance” (even at Papal Masses) as an experiential means of teaching the Faith, denotes both a Jungian and Steinerian influence. (Steiner’s techniques are actually a “subversive” form of hypnosis applied to religious, political and educational groups to make them tools for effecting the Masonic Universal Republic. Destroying rational thought, they produce the “false idealist” and “soft peacemonger” who lives by feelings, finds goodness and beauty in ugliness and evil, does not criticized error, gives up his personality, and blends with another. He is then easily controlled and even obsessed.)

Karol and his friends committed themselves to “the dramatic exploration of the interior life” under Kotlarczyk. Amongst his man roles, Karol was the “Seer John” in Steiner’s arrangement of the Apocalypse. Other esoteric works in which he acted or which had “significance in his spiritual formation” included productions by Juliusz Slowacki (1809-49) and Adam Mickiewicz (1789-1855). Slowacki was an evolutionist and reincarnationalist who believed Poland’s political sufferings were “karma.” Mickiewicz was a kabbalist and Martinist (a form of occultism). Both men subscribed to Polish Messianism, which was intertwined with Jewish Messianism and occultism. Their ideas were incorporated into other plays. To “rebuke” Pius IX, who did not support Polish nationalism and the Masonic revolution in Italy, Slowacki also composed a poem about a future “Slavic Pope” who would head a “reformed papacy,” and would be tough, but “a brother of the people.” As Pope John Paul II, Karol would later apply this poem to himself.

The following comment by Father Wojtyla (under a pseudonym) in 1958 shows how the Rhapsodic Theatre solidified his rejection of individualism in favour of the one mind enforced in the new ecclesial sects:

This theater … defends the young actors against developing a destructive individualism, because it will not let them impose on the text anything of their own; it gives them inner discipline. A group of people, collectively, somehow unanimously, subordinated to the great poetic word, evoke ethical associations; this solidarity of people in the word reveals particularly strongly and accentuates the reverence that is the point of departure of the rhapsodists’ word and the secret of their style.

After his ordination, Father Wojtyla created his own youth group, “Little Family,” whose members called him “Uncle.” Little Family became the core of a larger community known as Srodowisko or “milieu,” which he led until elected Pope. The seeds for World Youth Day lay in the co-ed hiking across Poland, sleeping in barns, discussing anything, singing, praying, and attending his outdoor Masses. His good friend, Fr. Mieczyslaw Malinski, another Tyranowski graduate, admiringly referred to him as “Wojtyla the revolutionary,” who shocked “the entire Cracow diocese.” He was also the type of priest Focolare likes, “wholly devoid of clericalism.” Tyranowski’s training taught him to highly value the laity, and he tested his philosophical ideas on Srodowisko friends and his Lublin University doctoral students, encouraging a “mutual exchange” of ideas, happy to learn from them.

Having gone from lay leader to Pope, it is no surprise that John Paul became the greatest promoter and protector of the lay movements, starting with gaining them official recognition at Vatican II. Furthermore, Focolare, Neocatechumenal Way, Communion and Liberation and Light-Life (for Oasis) were well-established in Communist Poland, where Karol Wojtyla got to know them; and he championed them since his days as Archbishop of Cracow. He saw the movements as crucial “for achieving his vision”: they are “privileged channels for the formation and promotion of an active laity …” The following statement he made to Communion and Liberation in 1979 encapsulates the continuity of thought between his Tyranowski days and the modern sects: “the true liberation of man comes about, therefore, in the experience of ecclesial  communion. . . .“

Pope John Paul’s Apostolic Letter for the Year of the Eucharist (October 2004-October 2005) shows that Vatican II was a bridge for this continuity. Citing Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium, Pope John Paul says the Eucharist is a sign and instrument of “the unity of the whole human race”–i.e., it is meant to bring about the pantheistic Masonic one-world community! It should inspire Christians to “become promoters [sic] of dialogue and communion,” and communities to “building a more just and fraternal society.” (Cornelia Ferreira and John Vennari, World Youth Day: From Catholicism to Counterchurch, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, Canisius Books, 2005, pp. 126-133.)

It is no accident that the cries of “Santo Subito” (“Saint Now”) that roared from the crowds in Rome during and after the so-called “Mass of Christian Burial” for John Paul II on April 8, 2005, were inspired by Focolare members who, acting according to the dictates of group psychology, started chants with their adherents so that others would join them for a chorus of voices demanding the instant “canonization” of one of their very own number.

Yes, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II did indeed lose the Faith in his youth, and not even the praise of his devotion to the Mother of God, whose Most Holy Rosary he saw fit to alter according to his Modernist lights, heaped on him yesterday by Ratzinger/Benedict XVI can mask the fact that Wojtyla/John Paul II promoted the sort of false ecumenism that a priest he “canonized,” the courageous foe of all forms of naturalism by the name of Father Maximilian Kolbe, M.I., called “today’s ecumenism” an an enemy of the Immaculata that must be opposed and destroyed:

“Only until all schismatics and Protestants profess the Catholic Creed with conviction, when all Jews voluntarily ask for Holy Baptism – only then will the Immaculata have reached its goals.”

“In other words” Saint Maximilian insisted, “there is no greater enemy of the Immaculata and her Knighthood than today’s ecumenism, which every Knight must not only fight against, but also neutralize through diametrically opposed action and ultimately destroy. We must realize the goal of the Militia Immaculata as quickly as possible: that is, to conquer the whole world, and every individual soul which exists today or will exist until the end of the world, for the Immaculata, and through her for the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus.” (Father Karl Stehlin, Immaculata, Our Ideal, Kansas City, Missouri, Angelus Press, 2007, p. 37.)

The Mother of God has never praised false religions and she has never reaffirmed anyone in such religions. Indeed, quite the opposite is true:

Then the Lady said, “Where does that heretic live who cut the willow tree? Does he not want to be converted?”

Pierre [Port-Combet, who had become a Calvinist] mumbled an answer. The Lady became more serious, “Do you think that I do not know that you are the heretic? Realize that your end is at hand. If you do not return to the True Faith, you will be cast into Hell! But if you change your beliefs, I shall protect you before God. Tell people to pray that they may gain the good graces which, God in His mercy has offered to them.”

Pierre was filled with sorrow and shame and moved away from the Lady. Suddenly realizing that he was being rude, Pierre stepped closer to her, but she had moved away and was already near the little hill. He ran after her begging, “Please stop and listen to me. I want to apologize to you and I want you to help me!”

The Lady stopped and turned. By the time Pierre caught up to her, she was floating in the air and was already disappearing from sight. Suddenly, Pierre realized that the Most Blessed Virgin Mary had appeared to him! He fell to his knees and cried buckets of tears, “Jesus and Mary I promise you that I will change my life and become a good Catholic. I am sorry for what I have done and I beg you please, to help me change my life…”

On August 14, 1656, Pierre became very sick. An Augustinian priest came to hear his confession and accepted him back into the Catholic Church. Pierre received Holy Communion the next day on the Feast of the Assumption. After Pierre returned to the Catholic Faith, many others followed him. His son and five daughters came back to the Catholic Church as well as many Calvinists and Protestants. Five weeks later on September 8, 1656, Pierre died and was buried under the miraculous willow tree, just as he had asked. (Our Lady of the Willow Tree.)

“When I traversed the church, I arrived at the spot where they were getting ready for the funeral. Suddenly I felt interiorly disturbed, and saw in front of me something like a veil. It seemed to me that the entire church had been swallowed up in shadow, except one chapel. It was as thought all the light was concentrated in that single place. I looked over towards this chapel whence so much light shone and above the altar I saw a living figure standing, tall, majestic, beautiful and full of mercy. It was the most Holy Virgin Mary, resembling her figure on the Miraculous Medal of the Immaculate. At this sight I fell on my knees right where I stood; several times I attempted to lift my eyes towards the Most Blessed Virgin, but respect and the blinding light forced me to lower my gaze; this, however, did not prevent me from seeing the luminosity of the apparition. I fixed my glance on her hands, and in them I could read the expression of mercy and pardon. In the presence of the most Blessed Virgin, even though she did not speak a word to me, I understood the frightful situation I was in, the heinousness of sin, the beauty of the Catholic religion . . . in a word, I understood everything.

“When he returned, M. de Bussieres found me kneeling, my head resting on the railing of the chapel where the most Blessed Virgin had appeared, and bathed in tears. I do not understand how I managed to get to the railing, because I had fallen to my knees on the other side of the nave, and the catafalque stood between me and the chapel. I must add that the feeling that accompanied my weeping was one of gratitude towards the Blessed Virgin and of pity for my family, buried in the darkness of Judaism, for heretics and for sinners. M. de Bussieres raised me up and, still weeping, I told him, ‘Oh, that person must have prayed very much for me,’ thinking of the deceased Count de Laferronays. [Father Kolbe note: “M. de Bussieres had in fact recommended Ratisbonne to the prayers of M. de Laferronays.”]

“He asked me several questions, but I could not answer, so deeply was I moved. So he took me by the hand, led me out of the church to the carriage and helped me to get in. Then he asked me where I wanted to go.

“Take me wherever you like,” I said, “after what I have seen, I will do anything you want.”

“‘But what did you see?’ he asked me.

“I cannot tell you; but please bring me to a confessor, and I will tell him everything on my knees.”

“He brought me to the church of the Gesu, to a Jesuit, Father Villefort, to whom in the presence of M. de Bussieres, I related all that had happened to me.”

(In his letter he continues.)

“All I can say of myself comes down to this: that in an instant a veil fell from my eyes; or rather not a single veil, but many of the veils which surrounded me were dissipated one after the other, like snow, mud and ice under the burning rays of the sun. I felt as though I were emerging from a tomb, from a dark grave; that I was beginning to be a living being, enjoying a real life. And yet I wept. I could see into the depths of my frightful misery, from which infinite mercy had liberated me. My whole being shivered at the sight of my transgressions; I was shaken, overcome by amazement and gratitude. I thought of my brother with indescribable joy; and to my tears of love there were joined tears of compassion. How many persons in this world, alas, are going down unknowingly into the abyss, their eyes shut by pride and indifference!They are being swallowed up alive by those horrifying shadows; and among them are my family, my fiancee, my poor sisters. What a bitter thought! My mind turned to you, whom I love so much; for you I offered my first prayers. Will you some day raise your eyes towards the Savior of the world, whose blood washed away original sin? How monstrous is the stain of that sin, because of which man no longer bears the resemblance to God!

“They asked me now I had come to know these truths, since they all knew that I had never so much as opened a book dealing with religion, head not even read a single page of the Bible, while the dogma of original sin, entirely forgotten or denied by modern Jews, had never occupied my mind for a single instant. I am no sure that I had even heard its name. So how had I come to know these truths? I cannot tell’ all I know is that when I entered the church, I was ignorant of all this, whereas when I left I could see it all with blinding clarity. I cannot explain this change except by comparing myself to a man who suddenly awakens from deep sleep or to someone born blind who suddenly acquires sight. He sees, even though he cannot describe his sensations or pinpoint what enlightens him and makes it possible for him to admire the things around him. If we cannot adequately explain natural light, how can we describe a light the substance of which is truth itself? I think I am expressing myself correctly when I say that I did not have any verbal knowledge, but had come to possess the meaning and spirit of the dogmas, to feel rather than see these things, to experience them with the help of the inexpressible power which was at work within me.

“The love of God had taken the place of all other loves, to such an extent that I loved even my fiancee, but in a different way. I loved her like someone whom God held in his hands, like a precious gift which inspires an even greater love for the giver.”

(As they wanted to delay his Baptism, Ratisbonne pleaded.)

“What? The Jews who heard the preaching of the apostles were baptized at once; and you wish to delay Baptism for me who have heard the Queen of the apostles?“

“My emotion, my ardent desires and my prayers finally induced these good men to fix a date for my Baptism. I awaited the appointed day with impatience, because I realized how displeasing I was in the eyes of God.

(Finally the 31st of January came. He described his Baptism.)

“Immediately after Baptism I felt myself filled with sentiments of veneration and filial love for the Holy Father; I considered myself fortunate when I was told that I would be granted an audience with the Pontiff, accompanied by the General of the Jesuits. In spite of all this I was quite nervous, because I had never frequented the important people of this world; although these important people seemed to me too insignificant when compared to true grandeur. I must confess that I included among these great ones of the world the one who on this earth holds God’s highest power, i.e., the pope, the successor of Jesus Christ himself, whose indestructible chair he occupies.

“Never will I forget my trepidation and the beatings of my heart when I entered the Vatican and traversed the spacious courtyards and majestic halls leading to the sacred premises where the pope resides. When I beheld him, though, my nervousness suddenly gave way to amazement. He was so simple, humble and paternal. This was no monarch, but a father who with unrestrained love treated me like a cherished son.

“O good God! Will it be thus when I appear before you to give you an account of the graces I hare received? Awe fills me at the mere thought of God’s greatness, and I tremble before his justice; but at the sight of his mercy my confidence revives, and with confidence so will my love and unbounded gratitude.

“Yes, gratitude will from now on be my law and my life . I cannot express it in words; so I shall strive to do so in deeds. The letters received from my family give me full liberty; I wish to consecrate this liberty to God, and I offer it to him from this very moment, along with my whole life, to serve the Church and my brothers under the protection of the most Blessed Virgin Mary.” (An account of the miraculous conversion of Alphonse Ratisbonne by Our Lady in the Church of San Andrea delle Fratte on January 20, 1842, as found in: Father Anselm W. Romb, OFM Conv., Commentator and Editor, The Writings of St. Maximilian M. Kolbe, OFM Conv.: The Kolbe Reader, pp. 22-31.)

Yet it was yesterday that Ratzinger/Benedict praised his predecessor for his commitment to the “Second” Vatican Council that Wojtyla/John Paul II had made clear at the beginning of his false “pontificate:”

In his Testament, the new Blessed wrote: “When, on 16 October 1978, the Conclave of Cardinals chose John Paul II, the Primate of Poland, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński, said to me: ‘The task of the new Pope will be to lead the Church into the Third Millennium’”. And the Pope added: “I would like once again to express my gratitude to the Holy Spirit for the great gift of the Second Vatican Council, to which, together with the whole Church – and especially with the whole episcopate – I feel indebted. I am convinced that it will long be granted to the new generations to draw from the treasures that this Council of the twentieth century has lavished upon us. As a Bishop who took part in the Council from the first to the last day, I desire to entrust this great patrimony to all who are and will be called in the future to put it into practice. For my part, I thank the Eternal Shepherd, who has enabled me to serve this very great cause in the course of all the years of my Pontificate”. And what is this “cause”? It is the same one that John Paul II presented during his first solemn Mass in Saint Peter’s Square in the unforgettable words: “Do not be afraid! Open, open wide the doors to Christ!” What the newly-elected Pope asked of everyone, he was himself the first to do: society, culture, political and economic systems he opened up to Christ, turning back with the strength of a titan – a strength which came to him from God – a tide which appeared irreversible. By his witness of faith, love and apostolic courage, accompanied by great human charisma, this exemplary son of Poland helped believers throughout the world not to be afraid to be called Christian, to belong to the Church, to speak of the Gospel. In a word: he helped us not to fear the truth, because truth is the guarantee of liberty. To put it even more succinctly: he gave us the strength to believe in Christ, because Christ is Redemptor hominis, the Redeemer of man. This was the theme of his first encyclical, and the thread which runs though all the others. (Benedict’s homily” “beatifying Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II.)

Readers of this site know full well that the “fruit” of the “Second” Vatican Council has been nothing other than a new theology with its own false liturgy and false pastoral praxis that has offended God on a daily basis and served as the ruination of so many hundreds of millions of souls as what appears to be the Catholic Church to most people has made its “reconciliation” with the anti-Incarnational principles of Modernity that have made efforts by Wojtyla/John Paul II and Ratzinger/Benedict XVI to oppose “secularizing” trends as absurd as they have preached a false view of the world that is not founded on the necessity of the conversion of every man and nation to the Catholic Faith, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order, no less of taking seriously Our Lady’s Fatima Message and the specific request that she made to Sister Lucia for the collegial consecration of Russia to her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart by a pope with all of the world’s bishops. Even the Fatima Message had to be deconstructed and turned into a vessel for conciliarism and its false ecumenism (see A New Fatima For A New Religion).

John Paul II stated his commitment to ecumenism at the very beginning of his tenure. He also made it clear that he was committed to “finding” the “hidden” or “implicit” messages of the “Second” Vatican Council, making it even the more inexcusable for “conservatives” such as yours truly at the time:

First of all, we wish to point out the unceasing importance of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, and we accept the definite duty of assiduously bringing it into affect. Indeed, is not that universal Council a kind of milestone as it were, an event of the utmost importance in the almost two thousand year history of the Church, and consequently in the religious and cultural history of the world.

However, as the Council is not limited to the documents alone, neither is it completed by the ways applying it which were devised in these post-conciliar years. Therefore we rightly consider that we are bound by the primary duty of most diligently furthering the implementation of the decrees and directive norms of that same Universal Synod. This indeed we shall do in a way that is at once prudent and stimulating. We shall strive, in particular, that first of all an appropriate mentality may flourish. Namely, it is necessary that, above all, outlooks must be at one with the Council so that in practice those things may be done that were ordered by it, and that those things which lie hidden in it or—as is usually said—are “implicit” may become explicit in the light of the experiments made since then and the demands of changing circumstances. Briefly, it is necessary that the fertile seeds which the Fathers of the Ecumenical Synod, nourished by the word of God, sowed in good ground (cf. Mt 13: 8, 23)—that is, the important teachings and pastoral deliberations should be brought to maturity in that way which is characteristic of movement and life. (First Urbi et Orbi Radio message, October 17, 1978.)

It means nothing that one apostate antipope has praised another in the process of “beatifying” him in order to provide more “saints” for the conciliar revolution. Nor does Ratzinger/Benedict’s praise yesterday for Wojtyla/John Paul II’s role in “ending” communism is nothing other than a delusion, which was pointed out in “Beatifying” Yet Another Conciliar Revolutionary:

What about the “end of Communism” that was precipitated in large measure because of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II’s firm stand in support of Lech Walesa’s Solidarity movement whose creation was inspired by a “homily” that the false “pontiff” gave in Gdansk, Poland, during an outdoor staging of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service in Gdansk, Poland, in June of 1979? Well, what about that?

Communism did not “end” when the Berlin Wall came down on November 9, 1989, or when the flag of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was taken down in Moscow on December 25, 1991. The apparent end of Communism provided Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II with the opportunity to send Modernist Jesuit “missionaries” to “evangelize” Catholics behind the Iron Curtain about the “Second” Vatican Council and the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service. One diabolical ideology, which had done gone away and is still present in the countries of the former Soviet bloc, including Russia itself, was replaced with another. Such is not the stuff of beatification or canonization.

Although much more can be written, the hour is late. Those who want to see the truth of the matter will do so. I do, however, want to note the continued arrogance of the conciliar revolutionaries as exemplified by Ratzinger/Benedict’s asserting the following in his “homily” yesterday:

He restored to Christianity its true face as a religion of hope, to be lived in history in an “Advent” spirit, in a personal and communitarian existence directed to Christ, the fullness of humanity and the fulfillment of all our longings for justice and peace. (Benedict’s homily” “beatifying Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II.)

“He restored to Christianity its true face as a religion of hope”? Excuse me, Antipope Benedict, when had Catholicism lost its true face as a religion of hope?

Under the pontificate of Pope Pius VI?

Under the pontificate of Pope Pius VII?

Under the pontificate of Pope Leo XII?

Under the pontificate of Pope Gregory XVI?

Under the pontificate of Pope Pius IX?

Under the pontificate of Pope Leo XIII?

Under the pontificate of Pope Saint Pius X?

Under the pontificate of Pope Benedict XV?

Under the pontificate of Pope Pius XI?

Under the pontificate of Pope Pius XII?

When, precisely, did Catholicism lose its “true face as a religion of hope.”

And when, pray tell, did the “fullness of humanity” and “justice and peace” replace the salvation of souls as the first law of the Catholic Church.

The chimerical slogans of “human dignity” and “justice and peace” were mouthed a century ago by the leaders of the Sillon in France who had the support of one Father Angelo Roncalli, the future “Pope” John XXIII, and they were mocked as sophistries by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:

Alas! yes, the double meaning has been broken: the social action of the Sillon is no longer Catholic. The Sillonist, as such, does not work for a coterie, and “the Church”, he says, “cannot in any sense benefit from the sympathies that his action may stimulate.” A strange situation, indeed! They fear lest the Church should profit for a selfish and interested end by the social action of the Sillon, as if everything that benefited the Church did not benefit the whole human race! A curious reversal of notions! The Church might benefit from social action! As if the greatest economists had not recognized and proved that it is social action alone which, if serious and fruitful, must benefit the Church! But stranger still, alarming and saddening at the same time, are the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, “the reign of love and justice” with workers coming from everywhere, of all religions and of no religion, with or without beliefs, so long as they forego what might divide them – their religious and philosophical convictions, and so long as they share what unites them – a “generous idealism and moral forces drawn from whence they can” When we consider the forces, knowledge, and supernatural virtues which are necessary to establish the Christian City, and the sufferings of millions of martyrs, and the light given by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and the self-sacrifice of all the heroes of charity, and a powerful hierarchy ordained in heaven, and the streams of Divine Grace – the whole having been built up, bound together, and impregnated by the life and spirit of Jesus Christ, the Wisdom of God, the Word made man – when we think, I say, of all this, it is frightening to behold new apostles eagerly attempting to do better by a common interchange of vague idealism and civic virtues. What are they going to produce? What is to come of this collaboration? A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity. It will be a tumultuous agitation, sterile for the end proposed, but which will benefit the less Utopian exploiters of the people. Yes, we can truly say that the Sillon, its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings Socialism in its train.

We fear that worse is to come: the end result of this developing promiscuousness, the beneficiary of this cosmopolitan social action, can only be a Democracy which will be neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish. It will be a religion (for Sillonism, so the leaders have said, is a religion) more universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men become brothers and comrades at last in the “Kingdom of God”. – “We do not work for the Church, we work for mankind.”

And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholics of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

Conciliarism is Sillonism and no attempts to legitimize its revolutionary precepts by “beatifying” and “canonizing” its proponents have any other source than the devil himself, who mocks the Catholic Faith by placing his minions, whether witting or unwitting, in positions of power in Its counterfeit ape that is replete with its false, sacrilegious liturgical rites and its false doctrines and its false pastoral praxis.

When all is said and done, though, yesterday’s party in Rome was indeed an anticlimactic day as the apostasies of antipope were celebrated and raised to the liturgical tables of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. How much different will the “canonization” be when it takes place?

“As one perceptive reader of this site asked rhetorically, “I wonder if the Koran he kissed is now considered a ‘relic!’ Good question. I’ve got my own: Am I a relic of some sort for having shaken his hand on six different occasions and for having served as his lector as he staged the Novus Ordo service in his private chapel in the Apostolic Palace on Wednesday, May 26, 1993? Is the Rosary he gave me after that liturgical service a “relic”?

Yes, absurd questions. The whole situation is absurd.

It does not matter that only a tiny fraction of Catholics in the world have drawn those conclusions as truth does not depend upon how many people see it. How many people saw the truth in Noe’s admonitions? No one outside of his family. How many people saw the truth that those who opposed Arianism, such as Saint Athanasius, whose feast is commemorated today on the transferred Feast of Saints Philip and James, were correct? How many bishops in England remained faithful to Holy Mother Church at the time of Henry VIII’s revolt against Christ the King? Just one. Truth does not depend upon the fact that a tiny fraction of mostly warring Catholics now. It is that simple.

Once again, seeing the truth does not make anyone one whit better than those who do not. Each of us must work out our salvation in fear and in trembling. We must persevere in Charity and to perform the Supernatural and Corporal Works of Mercy. We must spend time in prayer before Our Lord’s Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament. And we must  pray our Rosaries with fervor and devotion as we keep shielding ourselves with her Brown Scapular and trust in the power of her Miraculous Medal. We are not assured of our salvation just because we have been sent the graces by Our Lady to understand that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is false and is a tool of the adversary to lead souls away from sanctity as they become convinced that Holy Mother Church can contradict herself or that it is possible for true popes, whether now or in the past, to give his error and defective liturgies.

Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II kept his word to be faithful to the “Second” Vatican Council. Perhaps that is reason enough for the conciliarists to have “beatified” him yesterday no matter those false rites and doctrines and no matter his track record of “episcopal” appointments and the protection of men who were as morally derelict in the discharge of their duties as he was of his. Revolutionaries must always seek to lionize their own.

We must remain confident that the Triumph of her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart will vanquish the foes of the Faith in the world and in the counterfeit church of conciliarism once and for all. Every Rosary we pray, offered to the Most Holy Trinity through that same Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, will plant a few seeds for this triumph.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!

Saint Joseph, Patron of Departing Souls, pray for us.

 July 3, 2013

Two For The Price Of One

Part One

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Let the “canonization” circus begin yet again.

In days gone by, of course, conciliar revolutionaries such as Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II sought to give the appearance of “conservatism” while advancing with great vigor their false doctrines and sacrilegious liturgical rites, which the fourth conciliar “Petrine Minister” “beatified” Pope Pius IX, who had convened the [First] Vatican Council in 1869, and Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, who convened the “Second” Vatican Council on October 11, 1962, on the same day, September 3, 2000, which was, of course, the feast day of Pope Saint Pius X in the Catholic Church (not the conciliar church). This double “beatification” was designed to placate “conservatives” and traditionally-minded Catholics attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism while at the same time establishing the precedent of “beatifying” each of the conciliar “pontiffs” whose very beliefs and practices had been condemned by various general councils and true popes of the Catholic Church over the centuries.

Ah, there is to be no more placating “conservatives” and/or traditionally-minded Catholics, you know, those “rigid,” “Pharisaical” people who want to return to the big, bad “no church” of the “preconciliar” era, under the “Petrine Ministry” of Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis. The revolution is in full throttle under the Jesuit lay revolutionary of Italian parentage and Argentinian birth. Francis The Flexible apparently is ready to stage a “double canonization” featuring none other than the corpulent old Modernist from Bergamo, Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, and the New Theologian from Poland, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II:

Wojtyla “instant saint” but along with John XXIII, the “Good Pope.” This morning at the Vatican cardinals and bishops who are members of the “ordinary” Congregation of Saints, were meeting to examine various cases before the summer. Among these, the miracle attributed to the intercession of Blessed John Paul II, the instantaneous healing of a woman. The last crucial step before Francesco’s final seal of approval, which will lead to the canonization in record time, of the Polish Pontiff beatified two years ago.

But surprisingly, the cardinals and bishops will also discuss another subject, added in the last few days, the canonization of John XXIII, the Pope who convened the Second Vatican Council, who died fifty years ago in June and was beatified in 2000. An unexpected turn of events, which attests to the desire to celebrate the two sanctifications together, bringing the halo and the universal worship to both the Pope of Bergamo, and Pope John Paul II.

The most likely date for the ceremony during which Roncalli and Wojtyla could be canonized is next December, immediately after the conclusion of the Year of Faith, given that the initial hypothesis of October seems less and less feasible due to time constraints and organizational problems . Cardinal Angelo Amato, Prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, after the decision taken this morning, will meet Francesco and in the next few days the news of the two Popes Saints may be made permanently official.

It was John Paul II, in September 2000, during the Jubilee year, to proclaim John XXIII, Blessed, joining in the celebration was also the beatification of Pius IX, the last Pope king. On that occasion, moving Roncalli up his first step to the altar, was the miracle of healing to Sister Caterina Capitani, which occurred in 1966.

As is well known according to the canonical norms for canonization it is necessary to recognise a second miracle that occurs after the beatification. Over the last thirteen years there have been various reports of blessings and alleged miracles attributed to the intercession of Roncalli, but until recently it was not known that one of them had passed the scrutiny of medical consultations and theologians from the Vatican’s “factory of saints”. It is therefore possible that they have decided to shorten the timeframe. The Pope has the ability, if desired, to supersede the recognition of the miracle and proceed nonetheless with a canonization after having heard the advice of the cardinals in the congregation. (The Good Apostate and Figure of Antichrist, sainted within the year.)

Yes, step this way.

Get your programs in advance.

Watch the conciliar revolutionaries ape the practice of Roman emperors, who had busts of themselves placed throughout the Roman Empire, and of the French and Bolshevik and Maoist revolutionaries in establishing cults of personality that will continue after their deaths. The conciliar “canonization” process is a farce, and it is been used in many instances, including the upcoming “double canonization” of Roncalli and Wojtyla, to place beyond question the legitimacy of the false doctrines, liturgical rites and pastoral practices of conciliarism by claiming that those responsible for their promulgation and institutionalization enjoy the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven.

As time is brief, permit to enumerate some of the “heroic virtues” of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII that make him worthy of an ideological “canonization” at the hands of the current chief ideologist of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis.

Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII’s Heroic Conciliar Virtue One

A Desire for A Rupture With The Past

Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII was the first conciliar “pope.” It was his call for an “opening” of the Catholic Church to the world, that helped to make Catholics as immune to truth as Protestants and outright unbelievers, Roncalli/John XXIII started a process of breaking down the sensus Catholicus of ordinary Catholics that has now spiraled out of control, producing a situation where most Catholics in the world today have attitudes, beliefs and practices that are identical with their non-Catholic friends and acquaintances.

Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII praised the Protestant syncretist Roger Schutz, who was placed in “Heaven” by Ratzinger/Benedict almost immediately after Schutz’s murder on Tuesday, August 16, 2005, by calling the syncretist center of Taize, France, as “that little springtime. Father Didier Bonneterre included this telling sentence in his book on the cast of characters, including Roncalli, who used the Liturgical Movement as the means to enshrine false ecumenism:

After the death of John XXIII, his brother, Giuseppe Roncalli, visited Taize. During his visit, Roncalli remarked to his grandson, “It was my brother the Pope who began what will come out of Taize.” (Father Didier Bonneterre, The Liturgical Movement: Roots, Radicals, Results. Kansas City, Missouri: Angelus Press, 2002. p 101.)

More to the point, however, was that Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII was a firm believer in the “new ecclesiology,” that heresy that considers Protestant sects as part of the “Church of Christ,” a view he outlined to Schutz himself shortly before he, Roncalli/John XXIII, had to answer to God for his multiple apostasies at the moment of his Particular Judgment on June 3, 1963:

Q. Did Brother Roger himself testify explicitly to that development?

A. Father Alois (Roger Schutz’s successor at Taize): “He understood very early in his life that in order to pass on the Gospel to young people a reconciliation of Christians was necessary. After John XXIII and the Second Vatican Council, he considered that the time for reconciliation had come. He often told how, during his last meeting with John XXIII, in 1963, he was eager to hear a spiritual testament from the pope and he asked him about the place of Taizé in the Church. John XXIII replied, making circular gestures with his hands, ‘The Catholic Church is made of concentric circles that are always bigger and bigger.’ The pope did not specify in which circle he saw Taizé but Brother Roger understood that the pope wanted to say to him: you are already within, continue simply on this path. And that is what he did. (RORATE CÆLI)

Yes, Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII desired to have a complete rupture with the past, which is why he convened the “Second” Vatican Council, which opened on October 11, 1962:

Among these documents was a note by Msgr. Loris Capovilla, secretary of John XXIII in which, on behalf of the Pope, he gave instructions for the redaction of the Bull Humanae salutis, the bull that convened the Council. On the text typed by Capovilla, there are side notes handwritten by John XXIII himself. It is clearly affirmed in this text, Marco Roncalli assures us, that the Pope did not desire to follow the course of Vatican I because “neither in its substance nor in its form would it correspond to the present day situation.” We also see a rebuttal of the Church’s position on the temporal order taught by Pius IX, because now, the note emphasizes, “the Church demonstrates that she wants to be mater et magistra [mother and teacher].”

This revelation is, in my opinion, an extraordinary confirmation that John XXIII did not want any continuity with the previous Ecumenical Council convened and directed by Pius IX. When he affirmed that Vatican II must not follow Vatican I “either in its substance or in its form,” he was saying that it should be completely different; this is not far from saying that it should be the opposite.

Indeed, to say that the substance should be different means that the doctrine defended must be different. To say that the form should be different means that the militant character of Vatican I’s documents must be avoided. Incidentally, the reason alleged to explain a change in the Church’s position regarding the world – that now she wants to be mother and teacher – confirms that he wanted Vatican II to steer clear of the militant spirit of Vatican I. (Atila Sinka Guimaraes, John XXIII Wanted A Rupture With The Past.)

Angelo Roncalli/XXIII’s desire for a rupture for the past was first signified by the furtherance of the liturgical revolution that had begun under the direction of Fathers Ferdinando Antonelli, O.F.M., and Annibale Bugnini, C.M., during the last ten years of the pontificate of Pope Pius XII:

Pius XII succeeded by John XXIII. Angelo Roncalli. Throughout his ecclesiastical career, Roncalli was involved in affairs that place his orthodoxy under a cloud. Here are a few facts:

As professor at the seminary of Bergamo, Roncalli was investigated for following the theories of Msgr. Duchesne, which were forbidden under Saint Pius X in all Italian seminaries. Msgr Duchesne’s work, Histoire Ancienne de l’Eglise, ended up on the Index.

While papal nuncio to Paris, Roncalli revealed his adhesion to the teachings of Sillon, a movement condemned by St. Pius X. In a letter to the widow of Marc Sagnier, the founder of the condemned movement, he wrote: The powerful fascination of his [Sagnier’s] words, his spirit, had enchanted me; and from my early years as a priest, I maintained a vivid memory of his personality, his political and social activity.”

Named as Patriarch of Venice, Msgr.Roncalli gave a public blessing to the socialists meeting there for their party convention. As John XXIII, he made Msgr. Montini a cardinal and called the Second Vatican Council. He also wrote the Encyclical Pacem in Terris. The Encyclical uses a deliberately ambiguous phrase, which foreshadows the same false religious liberty the Council would later proclaim.

John XXIII’s attitude in matters liturgical, then, comes as no surprise. Dom Lambert Beauduin, quasi-founder of the modernist Liturgical Movement, was a friend of Roncalli from 1924 onwards. At the death of Pius XII, Beauduin remarked: “If they elect Roncalli, everything will be saved; he would be capable of calling a council and consecrating ecumenism…”‘

On July 25, 1960, John XXIII published the Motu Proprio Rubricarum Instructum. He had already decided to call Vatican II and to proceed with changing Canon Law. John XXIII incorporates the rubrical innovations of 1955–1956 into this Motu Proprio and makes them still worse. “We have reached the decision,” he writes, “that the fundamental principles concerning the liturgical reform must be presented to the Fathers of the future Council, but that the reform of the rubrics of the Breviary and Roman Missal must not be delayed any longer.”

In this framework, so far from being orthodox, with such dubious authors, in a climate which was already “Conciliar,” the Breviary and Missal of John XXIII were born. They formed a “Liturgy of transition” destined to last — as it in fact did last — for three or four years. It is a transition between the Catholic liturgy consecrated at the Council of Trent and that heterodox liturgy begun at Vatican II. 

The “Antiliturgical Heresy” in the John XXIII Reform

We have already seen how the great Dom Guéranger defined as “liturgical heresy” the collection of false liturgical principles of the 18th century inspired by Illuminism and Jansenism. I should like to demonstrate in this section the resemblance between these innovations and those of John XXIII.

Since John XXIII’s innovations touched the Breviary as well as the Missal, I will provide some information on his changes in the Breviary also. Lay readers may be unfamiliar with some of the terms concerning the Breviary, but I have included as much as possible to provide the “flavor” and scope of the innovations.

1.   Reduction of Matins to three lessons. Archbishop Vintimille of Paris, a Jansenist sympathizer, in his reform of the Breviary in 1736, “reduced the Office for most days to three lessons, to make it shorter.” In 1960 John XXIII also reduced the Office of Matins to only three lessons on most days. This meant the suppression of a third of Holy Scripture, two-thirds of the lives of the saints, and the whole of the commentaries of the Church Fathers on Holy Scripture. Matins, of course, forms a considerable part of the Breviary.

2.   Replacing ecclesiastical formulas style with Scripture. “The second principle of the anti-liturgical sect,” said Dom Guéranger, “is to replace the formulae in ecclesiastical style with readings from Holy Scripture.” While the Breviary of St. Pius X had the commentaries on Holy Scripture by the Fathers of the Church, John XXIII’s Breviary suppressed most commentaries written by the Fathers of the Church. On Sundays, only five or six lines from the Fathers remains.

3.   Removal of saints’ feasts from Sunday. Dom Gueranger gives the Jansenists’ position: “It is their [the Jansenists’] great principle of the sanctity of Sunday which will not permit this day to be ‘degraded’ by consecrating it to the veneration of a saint, not even the Blessed Virgin Mary. A fortiori, the feasts with a rank of double or double major which make such an agreeable change for the faithful from the monotony of the Sundays, reminding them of the friends of God, their virtues and their protection — shouldn’t they be deferred always to weekdays, when their feasts would pass by silently and unnoticed?”

John XXIII, going well beyond the well-balanced reform of St. Pius X, fulfills almost to the letter the ideal of the Janenist heretics: only nine feasts of the saints can take precedence over the Sunday (two feasts of St. Joseph, three feasts of Our Lady, St. John the Baptist, Saints Peter and Paul, St. Michael, and All Saints). By contrast, the calendar of St. Pius X included 32 feasts which took precedence, many of which were former holy days of obligation. What is worse, John XXIII abolished even the commemoration of the saints on Sunday.

4.   Preferring the ferial office over the saint’s feast. Dom Guéranger goes on to describe the moves of the Jansenists as follows: “The calendar would then be purged, and the aim, acknowledged by Grancolas (1727) and his accomplices, would be to make the clergy prefer the ferial office to that of the saints. What a pitiful spectacle! To see the putrid principles of Calvinism, so vulgarly opposed to those of the Holy See, which for two centuries has not ceased fortifying the Church’s calendar with the inclusion’ of new protectors, penetrate into our churches!”

John XXIII totally suppressed ten feasts from the calendar (eleven in Italy with the feast of Our Lady of Loreto), reduced 29 feasts of simple rank and nine of more elevated rank to mere commemorations, thus causing the ferial office to take precedence. He suppressed almost all the octaves and vigils, and replaced another 24 saints’ days with the ferial office. Finally, with the new rules for Lent, the feasts of another nine saints, officially in the calendar, are never celebrated. In sum, the reform of John XXIII purged about 81 or 82 feasts of saints, sacrificing them to “Calvinist principles.”

Dom Gueranger also notes that the Jansenists suppressed the feasts of the saints in Lent. John XXIII did the same, keeping only the feasts of first and second class. Since they always fall during Lent, the feasts of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Gregory the Great. St. Benedict, St. Patrick, and St. Gabriel the Archangel would never be celebrated. (Liturgical Revolution)

Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII’s desire for a “rupture with the past” was necessary for there to be an “ecclesiogenesis,” if you will, that is, the birth of a new church, a counterfeit church that is the ape of the Catholic Church.

Part of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII’s rupture with the past involved a “reconciliation” with the ancient enemies of Christ the King. Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII first “absolved” the Jews of any the guilt of the shedding of the Most Precious Blood of the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ before issuing an edict on March 21, 1959, ordered the removal of the word “perfidious” from the Prayer for the Jews in the Good Friday liturgy, thus setting the stage for the “Second” Vatican Council’s Nostra Aetate, October 28, 1965:

True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ;(13) still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ. (Nostra Aetate, October 28, 1965.)

It just happens to be that this false “teaching” requires us to believe that the following Fathers and Doctors of Holy Mother Church were wrong, that she herself was misled until the “truth” dawned during the age of conciliarism at the beginning of the reign of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII as he prepared the way for its blossoming in Nostra Aetate:

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 God?

(3) If, then, the Jews fail to know the Father, if they crucified the Son, if they thrust off the help of the Spirit, who should not make bold to declare plainly that the synagogue is a dwelling of demons? God is not worshipped there. Heaven forbid! From now on it remains a place of idolatry. But still some people pay it honor as a holy place. (Saint John Chrysostom: Eight Homilies Against the Jews)

Do not add to your sins by saying that the Covenant is both theirs and ours. Yes, it is ours, but they lost it forever. (St. Barnabas)

So clearly was the transition then made from the Synagogue to the Church that, when the Lord gave up His soul, the veil of the Temple was rent in two. (Pope St. Leo the Great)

Since His spouse, the Synagogue, refused to receive Him, Christ answered: “This is a harlot!” and gave her a bill of divorce. (St. Vincent Ferrer)

Ungrateful for favors and forgetful of benefits, the Jews return insult for kindness and impious contempt for goodness. They ought to know the yoke of perpetual enslavement because of their guilt. See to it that the perfidious Jews never in the future grow insolent, but that they always suffer publicly the shame of their sin in servile fear. (Pope Gregory IX)

Crucifiers of Christ ought to be held in continual subjection. (Pope Innocent III)

It would be licit, according to custom, to hold Jews in perpetual servitude because of their crime. (St. Thomas Aquinas)

Let the Gospel be preached to them and, if they remain obstinate, let them be expelled. (Pope Leo VII)

The Jews wander over the entire earth, their backs bent over and their eyes cast downward, forever calling to our minds the curse they carry with them. (St. Augustine)

As wanderers, they must remain upon the earth until their faces are filled with shame and they seek the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. (Pope Innocent III)

One who dies a Jew will be damned. (St. Vincent Ferrer)

Those of the seed of Abraham who live according to the Law of Moses and who do not believe in Christ before death shall not be saved; especially they who curse this very Christ in the synagogues; who curse everything by which they might obtain salvation and escape the vengeance of fire. (St. Justin the Martyr)

Judaism, since Christ, is a corruption; indeed, Judas is the image of the Jewish people: their understanding of Scripture is carnal; they bear the guilt for the death of the Savior, for through their fathers they have killed Christ. The Jews held Him; the Jews insulted Him; the Jews bound Him; they crowned Him with thorns; they scourged Him; they hanged Him upon a tree. (St. Augustine)

Jews are slayers of the Lord, murderers of the prophets, enemies and haters of God, adversaries of grace, enemies of their fathers’ faith, advocates of the devil, a brood of vipers, slanderers, scoffers, men of darkened minds, the leaven of Pharisees, a congregation of demons, sinners, wicked men, haters of goodness! (St. Gregory of Nyssa)

Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII’s Heroic Conciliar Virtue Two

Patience With Errors in the World to Open What He Thought Was the Catholic Church to That Same World of Error

Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII was an unreconstructed Modernist, a man who never gave up his support for The Sillon even after it had been condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910, going to say as to damn the “holy Saint Pius X’s” condemnation of The Sillon with faint praise as “affection and well-meaning” when writing to the widow of The Sillon’s founder, Marc Sangnier, upon the latter’s death on May 28, 1950:

Letter of the Apostolic Nuncio, Archbishop Angelo Roncalli, later Pope John XXIII, to Rénée Besançon Sangnier on the occasion of the death of her husband, Marc Sangnier, Pentecost Sunday, 28 May 1950

Paris, 6 June 1950

Madame Marc Sangnier
36, Boulevard Raspail, Paris

Madame,

…. I heard Marc Sangnier speak for the first time in Rome around 1903 or 1904 at a meeting of Catholic youth. The powerful charisma of his words and his spirit enthralled me. The most vivid memory of my whole youth is of his personality and his political and social activity.

His noble and frank humility in later accepting the admonition of the holy Pope Pius X – moreover, a very affectionate and well-meaning admonition – were the true measure of his greatness in my eyes.

Souls as capable as his of remaining as faithful and respectful to the Gospel and to the Holy Church are made for the highest ascensions that ensure glory, namely the glory of Christ who knew how to exalt the humble, and even the glory of this world before his contemporaries and posterity for whom the example of Marc Sangnier will remain as lesson and as an encouragement.

On the occasion of his death, my spirit was truly comforted to note that the most high ranking official voices in France joined together unanimously like a mantle of honour to wreathe Marc Sangnier with the Sermon on the Mount. One could not pay greater tribute or praise to the memory of this French emblem whose contemporaries were capable of appreciating the clarity of a deeply Christian soul and a noble simplicity of heart. (Archbishop Angelo Roncalli, Letter to Renee Besancon Sangnier, June 6, 1950.)

In other words, Marc Sangnier was to be admired for having taken the “well-meaning” but, of course, mistaken admonition given him by the “holy Pope Pius X,” not for having abandoned any of The Sillon’s false principles that would serve as the very philosophical foundation of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII’s “Petrine Ministry” and the whole ethos of the “Second” Vatican Council that he announced on January 25, 1959, would be held.

It was at the Opening Mass of the “Second” Vatican Council on October 11, 1962, that Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII laid down the principle of a respect for error that was the driving force of The Sillon:

In these days, which mark the beginning of this Second Vatican Council, it is more obvious than ever before that the Lord’s truth is indeed eternal. Human ideologies change. Successive generations give rise to varying errors, and these often vanish as quickly as they came, like mist before the sun.

The Church has always opposed these errors, and often condemned them with the utmost severity. Today, however, Christ’s Bride prefers the balm of mercy to the arm of severity. She believes that, present needs are best served by explaining more fully the purport of her doctrines, rather than by publishing condemnations.

Not that the need to repudiate and guard against erroneous teaching and dangerous ideologies is less today than formerly. But all such error is so manifestly contrary to rightness and goodness, and produces such fatal results, that our contemporaries show every inclination to condemn it of their own accord—especially that way of life which repudiates God and His law, and which places excessive confidence in technical progress and an exclusively material prosperity. It is more and more widely understood that personal dignity and true self-realization are of vital importance and worth every effort to achieve. More important still, experience has at long last taught men that physical violence, armed might, and political domination are no help at all in providing a happy solution to the serious problems which affect them. (Angelo Roncalli/ John XXIII ‘s Opening Address)

Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII’s belief that errors “often vanish as quickly as they came, like mist before sun” was and remains delusional. This is not a statement in accord with an authentic history of the Catholic Church. Errors have had to be exposed and fought by a multiplicity of means (prayer, fasting, sacrifice, penance, suffering, martyrdom and copious verbal and written condemnations.). Our Lady gave the Rosary to Saint Dominic de Guzman to be a weapon he could use in his preaching against the Albingensians, the forerunners of the Jansenists whose disciples persecuted then Sister Margaret Mary Alacoque so very much because of the revelations given to her by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ about the secrets contained in His Most Sacred Heart. Errors must be exposed and opposed.

Part of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII’s patience with error and openness to the world involve his agreement to the suppression of any mention, no less of criticism, of Communism at the “Second” Vatican Council in order to secure the attendance of “observers” from the heretical and schismatic Russian Orthodox Church:

In preparation for the Council, Catholic bishops around the world were polled by mail by the Office of the Secretariat to learn their opinions on topics to be considered at the Council. Communism topped the list.

However, as documented in the previous chapter, at the instigation of Cardinal Montini, two months before the opening of the Council, Pope John XXIII approved the signing of the Metz Accord with Moscow officials, whereby the Soviets would permit two representatives from the Russian State Church to attend the Council in exchange for absolute and total silence at the Council on the subject of Communism/Marxism.

With the exceptions of Cardinal Montini, who instructed Pope John to enter into negotiations with the Soviets, Cardinal Eugene Tisserant, who signed the Accord, and Bishop Jan Willebrands, who made the final contacts with the representatives of the Russian State Church, the Church Fathers at the Council were ignorant of the existence and nature of the Metz Agreement and the horrendous betrayal that it represented. (Mrs. Randy Engel, The Rite of Sodomy, pp. 1135-1136)

Why didn’t the last Ecumenical Council condemn Communism? A secret accord made at Metz supplies an answer.

Those who pass by the convent of the Little Sisters of the Poor in Borny – on the outskirts of the French city of Metz – never imagine that something of transcendental importance occurred in the residence of Fr. Lagarde, the convent’s chaplain. In a hall of this religious residence in August 1962 – two months before Vatican Council II opened – a secret meeting of the greatest importance between two high-ranking personalities took place.

One dignitary was a Cardinal of the Curia, Eugène Tisserant, representing Pope John XXIII; the other was metropolitan Nikodin, who spoke in the name of the Russian Schismatic Church.

This encounter had consequences that changed the direction of Council, which was already prepared to open. In effect, the meeting at Metz determined a change in the trajectory of the very History of the Church in the 20th century.

What was the matter of such great importance that was resolved at his meeting? Based on the documents that are known today, there it was established that Communism would not be condemned by Vatican Council II. In 1962, The Vatican and the Schismatic Russian Church came to an agreement. According to its terms, the Russian “Orthodox Church” agreed to send observers to Vatican II under the condition that no condemnation whatsoever of communism should be made there (1). 1. Ulysses Floridi, Moscou et le Vatican, Paris: France-Empire, Paris, 1979, pp. 147-48; Romano Amerio, Iota Unum, K.C., MO: Sarto House, 1996, pp. 75-76; Ricardo de la Cierva, Oscura rebelion en la Iglesia, Barcelona: Plaza & Janes, 1987, pp. 580-81. And why were the consequences of such a pact so far-reaching and important?

Because in the 20th century a principal enemy of the Catholic Church was Communism. As such, until Vatican II it had been condemned numerous times by the Magisterium. Moreover, in the early ’60s a new condemnation would have been quite damaging, since Communism was passing through a serious crisis, both internally and externally. On one hand, it was losing credibility inside the USSR since the people were becoming increasingly discontent with the horrendous administrative results of 45 years of Communist demagogy. On the other hand, outside the USSR Communism had not been able to persuade the workers and poor of free countries to take up its banner. In fact, up until that time it had never won a free election. Therefore, the leaders of international Communism decided that it was time to begin to change the appearances of the regime in order to retain the power they had and to experiment with new methods of conquest. So in the ‘60s President Nikita Khrushchev suddenly began to smile and talk about dialogue (2). 2. Plinio Correa de Oliveira, Unperceived Ideological Transshipment and Dialogue, New York: Crusade for a Christian Civilization, 1982, pp. 8-15. This would have been a particularly inopportune moment for the Pope or the Council to issue a formal condemnation, which could have either seriously damaged or possibly even destroyed the Communist regime..

A half secret act

Speaking about the liberty at Vatican II to deal with diverse topics, Professor Romano Amerio revealed some previously unpublished facts. “The salient and half secret point that should be noted,” he stated, “is the restriction on the Council’s liberty to which John XXIII had agreed a few months earlier, in making an accord with the Orthodox Church by which the patriarchate of Moscow accepted the papal invitation to send observers to the Council, while the Pope for his part guaranteed the Council would refrain from condemning Communism. The negotiations took place at Metz in August 1962, and all the details of time and place were given at a press conference by Mgr. Paul Joseph Schmitt, the Bishop of that Diocese [newspaper Le Lorrain, 2/9/63]. The negotiations ended in an agreement signed by metropolitan Nikodim for the Orthodox Church and Cardinal Tisserant, the Dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals, for the Holy See.

“News of the agreement was given in the France Nouvelle, the central bulletin of the French communist party in the edition of January 16-22, 1963 in these terms: ‘Because the world socialist system is showing its superiority in an uncontestable fashion, and is strong through the support of hundreds and hundreds of millions of men, the Church can no longer be content with a crude anti-communism. As part of its dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church, it has even promised there will be no direct attack on the Communist system at the Council.’ On the Catholic side, the daily La Croix of February 15, 1963 gave notice of the agreement, concluding: “‘As a consequence of this conversation, Msgr. Nikodim agreed that someone should go to Moscow carrying an invitation, on condition that guarantees were given concerning the apolitical attitude of the Council.’

“Moscow’s condition, namely that the Council should say nothing about Communism, was not, therefore, a secret, but the isolated publication of it made no impression on general opinion, as it was not taken up by the press at large and circulated, either because of the apathetic and anaesthetized attitude to Communism common in clerical circles or because the Pope took action to impose silence in the matter. Nonetheless, the agreement had a powerful, albeit silent, effect on the course of the Council when requests for a renewal of the condemnation of Communism were rejected in order to observe this agreement to say nothing about it” (3). 3. Romano Amerio, Iota Unum, pp. 65-66. Thus the Council, which made statements on capitalism and colonialism, said nothing specific about the greatest evil of the age, Communism. While the Vatican Monsignors were smiling at the Russian Schismatic representatives, many Bishops were in prison and innumerable faithful were either persecuted or driven underground for their fidelity to the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

The Kremlin-Vatican negotiations

This important information about Vatican-Kremlin negotiations is confirmed in an article ‘The mystery of the Rome-Moscow pact’ published in the October 1989 issue of 30 Dias, which quotes statements made by the Bishop of Metz, Paul Joseph Schmitt. In a February 9, 1963 interview with the newspaper Republicain Lorrain, Mgr. Schmitt said:

“It was in our region that the ‘secret’ meeting of Cardinal Tisserant with archbishop Nikodin occurred. The exact place was the residence of Fr. Lagarde, chaplain for the Little Sister of the Poor in Borny [on the outskirts of Metz]. Here for the first time the arrival of the prelates of the Russian Church was mentioned. After this meeting, the conditions for the presence of the Russian church’s observers were established by Cardinal Willebrands, an assistant of Cardinal Bea. Archbishop Nikodin agreed that an official invitation should be sent to Moscow, with the guarantee of the apolitical character of the Council” (4). 4. 30 Dias, October 1988, pp. 55-56.

The same source also transcribed a letter of Bishop Georges Roches regarding the Pact of Metz:

“That accord was negotiated between the Kremlin and the Vatican at the highest level .… But I can assure you …. that the decision to invite Russian Orthodox observers to Vatican Council II was made personally by His Holiness John XXIII with the encouragement of Cardinal Montini, who was counselor to the Patriarch of Venice when he was Archbishop of Milan…. Cardinal Tisserant received formal orders to negotiate the accord and to make sure that it would be observed during the Council” (5). 5. Ibid. p. 57

In a book published some time after this, German theologian Fr. Bernard Häring – who was secretary-coordinator at the Council for the redaction of Gaudium et Spes – revealed the more profound reason for the ‘pigeon-holing’ of apetition that many conciliar Fathers signed asking Paul VI and the Council to condemn Communism: “When around two dozen Bishops requested a solemn condemnation of Communism,” stated Fr. Häring, “Msgr. Glorieux …. and I were blamed like scapegoats. I have no reason to deny that I did everything possible to avoid this condemnation, which rang out clearly like a political condemnation. I knew that John XXIII had promised Moscow authorities that the Council would not condemn communism in order to assure the participation of observers of the Russian Orthodox church” (6). . . .

1. Catholic doctrine has always emphatically condemned Communism. It would be possible, should it be necessary, to publish a small book composed exclusively of anti-communist pontifical documents.

2. It would have been natural, therefore, for Vatican Council II, which met in Rome from 1962 to 1965, to have confirmed these condemnations against the greatest enemy of the Church and Christian Civilization in the 20th century.

3. In addition to this, 213 Cardinals, Archbishops, and Bishop solicited Paul VI to have the Council make such a condemnation. Later, 435 Conciliar Fathers repeated the same request. The two petitions were duly delivered within the time limits established by the Internal Guidelines of the Council. Nonetheless, inexplicably, neither petition ever came up for debate. The first was not taken into consideration. As for the second, after the Council had closed, it was alleged that it had been “lost” by Mgr. Achille Glorieux, secretary of the commission that would have been entrusted with the request.

4. The Council closed without making any express censure of Communism. Why was no censure made? The matter seemed wrapped in an enigmatic fog. Only later did these significant facts on the topic appear. The point of my article is to gather and present information from several different sources for the consideration of my reader. How can the actions of the Catholic Prelates who inspired, ordered, followed and maintained the decisions of the Pact of Metz be explained? I leave the answer to my reader.  (The Council of Metz)

Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII’s Metz Accord stands in sharp contrast with Pope Pius XI’s firm and unequivocal condemnation of Communism in Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937:

See to it, Venerable Brethren, that the Faithful do not allow themselves to be deceived! Communism is intrinsically wrong, and no one who would save Christian civilization may collaborate with it in any undertaking whatsoever. Those who permit themselves to be deceived into lending their aid towards the triumph of Communism in their own country, will be the first to fall victims of their error. And the greater the antiquity and grandeur of the Christian civilization in the regions where Communism successfully penetrates, so much more devastating will be the hatred displayed by the godless. (Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937.)

Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII’s Heroic Conciliar Virtue Three

Peace Through the United Nations, Not Christ the King and Our Lady’s Fatima Message

Angelo Roncalli/John XIII’s humanist manifesto, Pacem in Terris (April 11, 1963), was the antithesis of Pope Pius XI’s Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio (December 23, 1922), containing the following telling passage that could have come straight from The Sillon that he supported even after its condemnation by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique:

It is, therefore, especially to the point to make a clear distinction between false philosophical teachings regarding the nature, origin, and destiny of the universe and of man, and movements which have a direct bearing either on economic and social questions, or cultural matters or on the organization of the state, even if these movements owe their origin and inspiration to these false tenets. While the teaching once it has been clearly set forth is no longer subject to change, the movements, precisely because they take place in the midst of changing conditions, are readily susceptible of change. Besides, who can deny that those movements, in so far as they conform to the dictates of right reason and are interpreters of the lawful aspirations of the human person, contain elements that are positive and deserving of approval?

For these reasons it can at times happen that meetings for the attainment of some practical results which previously seemed completely useless now are either actually useful or may be looked upon as profitable for the future. But to decide whether this moment has arrived, and also to lay down the ways and degrees in which work in common might be possible for the achievement of economic, social, cultural, and political ends which are honorable and useful: these are the problems which can only be solved with the virtue of prudence, which is the guiding light of the virtues that regulate the moral life, both individual and social. Therefore, as far as Catholics are concerned, this decision rests primarily with those who live and work in the specific sectors of human society in which those problems arise, always, however, in accordance with the principles of the natural law, with the social doctrine of the church, and with the directives of ecclesiastical authorities. For it must not be forgotten that the Church has the right and the duty not only to safeguard the principles of ethics and religion, but also to intervene authoritatively with Her children in the temporal sphere, when there is a question of judging the application of those principles to concrete cases. (Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, Pacem in Terris, April 11, 1963.)

In other words, who cares about the Social Reign of Christ the King. Not the conciliar “popes,” including the first of their number, Roncalli/John XIII, who was sold bold as to decide not to release the authentic Third Secret of Fatima in 1960, reportedly telling aides that “This is not for our time.” (For a purported rendition of the Third Secret of Fatima that was published recently, please see The True Third Secret of Fatima?)

Yes, we can see the results, can we not?

Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII’s expressed support within the text of Pacem in Terris for the United Nations was a direct contradiction of Pope Pius XI’s mockery of the League of Nations and all other such organizations as found in his first encyclical letter, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922. See for yourselves:

142. The United Nations Organization (U.N.) was established, as is well known, on June 26, 1945. To it were subsequently added lesser organizations consisting of members nominated by the public authority of the various nations and entrusted with highly important international functions in the economics, social, cultural, educational and health fields. The United Nations Organization has the special aim of maintaining and strengthening peace between nations, and of encouraging and assisting friendly relations between them, based on the principles of equality, mutual respect, and extensive cooperation in every field of human endeavor.

143. A clear proof of the farsightedness of this organization is provided by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights passed by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948. The preamble of this declaration affirms that the genuine recognition and complete observance of all the rights and freedoms outlined in the declaration is a goal to be sought by all peoples and all nations.

144. We are, of course, aware that some of the points in the declaration did not meet with unqualified approval in some quarters; and there was justification for this. Nevertheless, We think the document should be considered a step in the right direction, an approach toward the establishment of a juridical and political ordering of the world community. It is a solemn recognition of the personal dignity of every human being; an assertion of everyone’s right to be free to seek out the truth, to follow moral principles, discharge the duties imposed by justice, and lead a fully human life. It also recognized other rights connected with these.

145. It is therefore Our earnest wish that the United Nations Organization may be able progressively to adapt its structure and methods of operation to the magnitude and nobility of its tasks. May the day be not long delayed when every human being can find in this organization an effective safeguard of his personal rights; those rights, that is, which derive directly from his dignity as a human person, and which are therefore universal, inviolable and inalienable. This is all the more desirable in that men today are taking an ever more active part in the public life of their own nations, and in doing so they are showing an increased interest in the affairs of all peoples. They are becoming more and more conscious of being living members of the universal family of mankind. (Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, Pacem in Terris, April 11, 1963.)

Because the Church is by divine institution the sole depository and interpreter of the ideals and teachings of Christ, she alone possesses in any complete and true sense the power effectively to combat that materialistic philosophy which has already done and, still threatens, such tremendous harm to the home and to the state. The Church alone can introduce into society and maintain therein the prestige of a true, sound spiritualism, the spiritualism of Christianity which both from the point of view of truth and of its practical value is quite superior to any exclusively philosophical theory. The Church is the teacher and an example of world good-will, for she is able to inculcate and develop in mankind the “true spirit of brotherly love” (St. Augustine, De Moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae, i, 30) and by raising the public estimation of the value and dignity of the individual’s soul help thereby to lift us even unto God.

Finally, the Church is able to set both public and private life on the road to righteousness by demanding that everything and all men become obedient to God “Who beholdeth the heart,” to His commands, to His laws, to His sanctions. If the teachings of the Church could only penetrate in some such manner as We have described the inner recesses of the consciences of mankind, be they rulers or be they subjects, all eventually would be so apprised of their personal and civic duties and their mutual responsibilities that in a short time “Christ would be all, and in all.” (Colossians iii, 11)

Since the Church is the safe and sure guide to conscience, for to her safe-keeping alone there has been confided the doctrines and the promise of the assistance of Christ, she is able not only to bring about at the present hour a peace that is truly the peace of Christ, but can, better than any other agency which We know of, contribute greatly to the securing of the same peace for the future, to the making impossible of war in the future. For the Church teaches (she alone has been given by God the mandate and the right to teach with authority) that not only our acts as individuals but also as groups and as nations must conform to the eternal law of God. In fact, it is much more important that the acts of a nation follow God’s law, since on the nation rests a much greater responsibility for the consequences of its acts than on the individual.

When, therefore, governments and nations follow in all their activities, whether they be national or international, the dictates of conscience grounded in the teachings, precepts, and example of Jesus Christ, and which are binding on each and every individual, then only can we have faith in one another’s word and trust in the peaceful solution of the difficulties and controversies which may grow out of differences in point of view or from clash of interests. An attempt in this direction has already and is now being made; its results, however, are almost negligible and, especially so, as far as they can be said to affect those major questions which divide seriously and serve to arouse nations one against the other. No merely human institution of today can be as successful in devising a set of international laws which will be in harmony with world conditions as the Middle Ages were in the possession of that true League of Nations, Christianity. It cannot be denied that in the Middle Ages this law was often violated; still it always existed as an ideal, according to which one might judge the acts of nations, and a beacon light calling those who had lost their way back to the safe road.

There exists an institution able to safeguard the sanctity of the law of nations. This institution is a part of every nation; at the same time it is above all nations. She enjoys, too, the highest authority, the fullness of the teaching power of the Apostles. Such an institution is the Church of Christ. She alone is adapted to do this great work, for she is not only divinely commissioned to lead mankind, but moreover, because of her very make-up and the constitution which she possesses, by reason of her age-old traditions and her great prestige, which has not been lessened but has been greatly increased since the close of the War, cannot but succeed in such a venture where others assuredly will fail. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

Pacem in Terris was written by a man possessed of the Judeo-Masonic ethos of The Sillon.

Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio was written by a Catholic and a true Successor of Saint Peter.

What counts for “heroic virtues” in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, supported, of course, by claims of miraculous deeds, are hideous in the sight of the true God of Divine Revelation as the counterfeit church of conciliarism is not the Catholic Church.

Spend time in prayer before the Real Presence of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour if this is possible where you live. Keep praying as many Rosaries each day as your state-in-life permits. Offer everything up to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Know this and know it well: the Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph in the end!

Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

         July 6, 2013

Two For The Price of One

Part Two

by Thomas A. Droleskey

It’s official now.

There will be “two for the price of one” come five months now, that is, in December of 2013.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis The Insidious Little Pest will indeed “canonize” Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII (see Two For The Price Of One, part one) and Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, who is the subject of this particular commentary.

The “canonization” of Roncalli/John XXIII will proceed despite there being only one “miracle” attributed to his intercession. Wojtyla/John Paul II, who streamlined the conciliar “canonization” process to such an extent that his endless “beatifications” and “canonizations” came to be known as products of the “saint factory.” is said to have two “miracles” attributed to his prayers.

Why not? As a former colleague of mine in the resist while recognize movement wrote about nine years ago, “Miracles? We don’t need no stinkin’ miracles.”

Here is the official announcement from the Occupy Vatican Movement concerning the latest conciliar farce:

(Vatican Radio) Journalists in the Holy See Press Office busy getting to grips with Pope Francis’ first encyclical the Light of Faith, were somewhat surprised Friday lunchtime when Director Fr. Federico Lombardi S.J. called them back for a second announcement: Pope Francis had approved the cause for canonization of two of his venerable and much loved predecessors Blessed John XXIII and Blessed Pope John Paul II. Emer McCarthy reports:

Meeting with Cardinal Angelo Amato, Prefect of the Congregation for the Cause of Saints, Friday morning, Pope Francis approved the promulgation of the decree and also convoked a special Consistory of the College of Cardinals to discuss the canonization of the Polish pope in depth.

Furthermore, he approved the favorable votes of the Ordinary Session of the Congregations Cardinals and Bishops regarding the raising to the altars of sainthood of Blessed John XXII.

This slightly unusual gesture was explained by Fr. Lombardi who told journalists that despite the absence of a second miracle it was the Pope’s will that the Sainthood of the great Pope of the Second Vatican Council be recognized.

Fr. Lombardi stated that a canonization without a second miracle is still valid, given that there is already the existing miracle that lead to the Roncalli Pope’s beatification. He also pointed to ongoing discussions among theologians and experts about whether it is necessary to have two distinct miracles for beatification and canonization. Certainly, he added the Pope has the power to dispense, in a Cause, with the second miracle.

However, there was no mention of dates. Neither for the Consistory nor for the Canonizations. Fr. Lombardi did not rule out that both celebrations could coincide, and he did express his belief that they would take place by the end of the year. Either way any date would be established during the Consistory. (Francis the Insidious Little Pest signs “canonization” decrees for John XXIII and John Paul II.)

As noted in part one of this two-part commentary, this is all nothing other than the making of plaster “saints” for purely ideological reasons. The ideology being promoted in this instance is conciliarism itself and its false doctrines, sacrilegious liturgies and condemned pastoral practices. No believing Catholic should take this seriously as it is simply the work of enemies of Christ the King and the souls He redeemed by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death.

Karol Joseph Wojtyla lost the Catholic Faith early in his life, something that Mrs. Cornelia Ferreira noted in the book that she coauthored with Mr. John Vennari, the editor of Catholic Family News, World Youth Day: From Catholicism to Counterchurch:

Like Focolare, other syncretic sects have received, or are in the process of receiving, canonical status, allowing them to masquerade as Catholic religious orders, complete with Statutes, community life, vows and even seminaries. The Neocatechumenate alone, founded by a lay man and ex-nun, has produced 196 priests from its Redemptoris Mater diocesan seminar in Rome and more than 1,000 from its 50 seminaries across the world. Besides the priests being developed by this and other sects, many other clergy live their spirituality. Bishops have already come from their heretical ranks, ordained by John Paul II and favoured with privileged positions, some within the Roman Curia and on Pontifical Councils. It is only logical to assume that they could produce a pope, loyal only to his particular “church” or movement. The ecclesial movements comprises priests, religious, single and married laity–each movement a parallel or an anti-Church within the bosom of the Catholic Church

But we don’t have to look to the future for a pope produced by a lay movement. Pope John Paul himself was the “product” and progenitor of dynamic lay groups.” In 1940, Karol Wojtyla, aged 19, fell under the sway of a Polish rationalist and self-taught psychologist, Jan Tyranowski, who had “developed his own spirituality” and had the reputation of a “mystic.” Quite in line with Deweyite and Jungian adult church principles, Tyranowski preached a gnostic experiential religion; “inner liberation from the faith,” i.e., from Catholicism; and “transformation of personality from within,” i.e., spiritual growth, through the “friendship” of a community. He also preached a life of service, especially to those of one’s community, as the fruit of the “practice and the presence of God.” “To bring young people into this same faith”–not Catholicism–he led weekly discussion meetings for young men he recruited, “in which theological questions were argued.” (Questioning the Faith is called “critical thinking” today.)

Tyranowski formed the Living Rosary, which shared many of the characteristics of modern lay movements. Its weekly meetings were run by lay people in homes, not by priests in parish halls. By 1943, there were 60 “animates” who reported to Tyranowski. One of these group leaders was Karol Wojtyla.

It is strange that Chiara Lubich also termed her group “the living Rosary.” Did she get the idea from Bishop Wojtyla, whom Focolare got to know in Poland? “The Living Rosary as created by Jan Tyranowski consisted of groups of fifteen young men, each of which was led by a more mature youngster who received personal spiritual direction … from the mystically gifted tailor.” The difference between the two “living” Rosaries is that Tyranowoski’s groups represented the decades of the Rosary, whilst Lubitch’s members were Hail Marys.

The inner transformation taught by Tyranowski is what New Agers today call a change in consciousness or paradigm shift, in which one synthesizes two opposing ideas, such as believing one is a good Catholic even if holding superstitious or occult beliefs. It is similar to Dewey’s merger of nature and grace or Jung’s “wholeness.” It is an occult, gnostic, kabbalistic method of producing a personal shift in values that engenders social transformation. Inner transformation led to religious orders abandoning the supernatural focus of Catholicism for naturalistic and social activism after Vatican II.

Pope John Paul II’s acceptance of the gnostic philosophy of the sects is also the product of the theatrical experiences of his youth. Theatre for Karol was “an experience of community”; but more than that, it was a serious training in gnostic transformation by Mieczyslaw Kotlarczyk, director of the Rhapsodic Theatre, which he co-founded with Karol. This Theatre, with its “theme of consciousness,” provided Wojtyla’s “initiation to phenomenology.” Kotlarczyk, who lived for some time in the Wojtyla home, tutored Karol in his method from the time Karol was sixteen until he joined the seminary six years later. He created a “theater of the inner world” to present “universal truths and universal moral values, which . . . offered the world the possibility of authentic transformation.” Plot, costumes and props were not important. Instead, speech–the “word”–was his focus, the goal being to use it to transform the consciousness of the audience (and actor). Hence Kotlarczyk, insisted on every word being pronounced just so.

That this was a training in the kabbalistic, occult use of words became clear when Kotlarczyk’s book, The Art of the Living Word: Diction, Expression, Magic, was published in 1975 by the Papal Gregorian University in Rome. Cardinal Wojtyla penned the preface to this book in which Kotlarczyk listed the sources of his ideas. The included the writings of several occultists and theosophists, amongst them some of the foremost kabbalists and occultists of modern times: Russian Mason Helena Blavatsky, founder of the Theosophical Society and the New Age Movement; French occultist Eliphas Levi (who influenced Blavatsky, Albert Pike, Grand Commander of Scottish Rite Masonry, and sorcerer Aleister Crowley, long-time head of the high Masonic Ordo Templi Orientis or OTO); and Rudolph Steiner. Illuminatus, Rosicrucian, theosophist, OTO member, Communist and founder of the Anthroposophical Society and Waldorf Schools. Theosophy had been condemned by the Church in 1919, the Holy Office stating one could not “read [theosophists’] books, daily papers, journals and writings.

Kotlarczyk believed he was an “archpriest of drama,” his living word method being a religion and “vocation,” with the actor as priest. As with theosophists who use the title “Master” for highly evolved humans who guide humanist, he called himself “Master of the Word.” He saw theater “as ritual” and “understood the liturgical character of theatrical action, . .. offering the possibility of entering into a new dimension. . . .” Theater could be “a way of perfection” if “the word” had absolute priority” over “externals and spectacles.”

Compare Kotlarczyk’s ideas with Anthroposophy or “Christian Illuminism,” which is a Luciferian initiation” that forms the enlightened or “deified” man with occult abilities. Anthroposophy teaches that occult knowledge, or the “inner meaning” of realities can be obtained through a “disciplined use of the arts, words, colour, music and eurhythmic (“universal harmony”), a way of dance that Steiner (1861-1925) created to express the inner meanings of sound. The explosion in the Church today of theatrics, “creative liturgy,” and eurhthmic-style”liturgical dance” (even at Papal Masses) as an experiential means of teaching the Faith, denotes both a Jungian and Steinerian influence. (Steiner’s techniques are actually a “subversive” form of hypnosis applied to religious, political and educational groups to make them tools for effecting the Masonic Universal Republic. Destroying rational thought, they produce the “false idealist” and “soft peacemonger” who lives by feelings, finds goodness and beauty in ugliness and evil, does not criticized error, gives up his personality, and blends with another. He is then easily controlled and even obsessed.)

Karol and his friends committed themselves to “the dramatic exploration of the interior life” under Kotlarczyk. Amongst his man roles, Karol was the “Seer John” in Steiner’s arrangement of the Apocalypse. Other esoteric works in which he acted or which had “significance in his spiritual formation” included productions by Juliusz Slowacki (1809-49) and Adam Mickiewicz (1789-1855). Slowacki was an evolutionist and reincarnationalist who believed Poland’s political sufferings were “karma.” Mickiewicz was a kabbalist and Martinist (a form of occultism). Both men subscribed to Polish Messianism, which was intertwined with Jewish Messianism and occultism. Their ideas were incorporated into other plays. To “rebuke” Pius IX, who did not support Polish nationalism and the Masonic revolution in Italy, Slowacki also composed a poem about a future “Slavic Pope” who would head a “reformed papacy,” and would be tough, but “a brother of the people.” As Pope John Paul II, Karol would later apply this poem to himself.

The following comment by Father Wojtyla (under a pseudonym) in 1958 shows how the Rhapsodic Theatre solidified his rejection of individualism in favour of the one mind enforced in the new ecclesial sects:

This theater … defends the young actors against developing a destructive individualism, because it will not let them impose on the text anything of their own; it gives them inner discipline. A group of people, collectively, somehow unanimously, subordinated to the great poetic word, evoke ethical associations; this solidarity of people in the word reveals particularly strongly and accentuates the reverence that is the point of departure of the rhapsodists’ word and the secret of their style.

After his ordination, Father Wojtyla created his own youth group, “Little Family,” whose members called him “Uncle.” Little Family became the core of a larger community known as Srodowisko or “milieu,” which he led until elected Pope. The seeds for World Youth Day lay in the co-ed hiking across Poland, sleeping in barns, discussing anything, singing, praying, and attending his outdoor Masses. His good friend, Fr. Mieczyslaw Malinski, another Tyranowski graduate, admiringly referred to him as “Wojtyla the revolutionary,” who shocked “the entire Cracow diocese.” He was also the type of priest Focolare likes, “wholly devoid of clericalism.” Tyranowski’s training taught him to highly value the laity, and he tested his philosophical ideas on Srodowisko friends and his Lublin University doctoral students, encouraging a “mutual exchange” of ideas, happy to learn from them.

Having gone from lay leader to Pope, it is no surprise that John Paul became the greatest promoter and protector of the lay movements, starting with gaining them official recognition at Vatican II. Furthermore, Focolare, Neocatechumenal Way, Communion and Liberation and Light-Life (for Oasis) were well-established in Communist Poland, where Karol Wojtyla got to know them; and he championed them since his days as Archbishop of Cracow. He saw the movements as crucial “for achieving his vision”: they are “privileged channels for the formation and promotion of an active laity …” The following statement he made to Communion and Liberation in 1979 encapsulates the continuity of thought between his Tyranowski days and the modern sects: “the true liberation of man comes about, therefore, in the experience of ecclesial  communion. . . .”

Pope John Paul’s Apostolic Letter for the Year of the Eucharist (October 2004-October 2005) shows that Vatican II was a bridge for this continuity. Citing Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium, Pope John Paul says the Eucharist is a sign and instrument of “the unity of the whole human race”–i.e., it is meant to bring about the pantheistic Masonic one-world community! It should inspire Christians to “become promoters [sic] of dialogue and communion,” and communities to “building a more just and fraternal society.” (Cornelia Ferreira and John Vennari, World Youth Day: From Catholicism to Counterchurch, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, Canisius Books, 2005, pp. 126-133.)

Leaving aside the authors’ acceptance of the legitimacy of the “pontificate” of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and their belief that the Catholic Church had or was even capable of endorsing the sects described so well and with such thorough documentation, I can say in all candor that I was fool for believing that Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II had the mind of a Catholic. A fool. That is what I was for projecting into the very warped, Modernist and New Age mind of Karol Wojtyla a commitment to the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ had entrusted exclusively to the Catholic Church. I permitted myself to be deceived.

Oh, the evidence was there. I had heard about the “Lublin School,” and was even given a book by the late Father Francis Lescoe, about the indecipherable phenomenology it taught when I was taking courses at Holy Apostles Seminary in the 1983-1984 academic year (as I was teaching a graduate course on the weekends at Saint John’s University in Jamaica, Queens). I looked at it, deemed to be thoroughly un-Catholic, refusing, however, to question the Catholicity of the man who was the Lublin School’s chief propagandist, the then currently reigning “pontiff.” I had built up a illusion about a man based on my own willingness to suspend rationality and my willingness to accept a delusion as reality.

No person who believes in what Wojtyla came to believe under the tutelage of Jan Tyranowski is a member of the Catholic Church. Pope Leo XIII made it clear in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896, that anyone who believes in things condemned by the Catholic falls from the Faith no matter how much, if even a great preponderance, of other truths of the Faith they hold, putting the lie, of course, to the “minimal beliefs” standard that has been fabricated entirely out of whole cloth by some apologists in behalf of the nonexistent legitimacy of the conciliar “popes:

The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. “There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition” (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. “No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic” (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).

The need of this divinely instituted means for the preservation of unity, about which we speak is urged by St. Paul in his epistle to the Ephesians. In this he first admonishes them to preserve with every care concord of minds: “Solicitous to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. iv., 3, et seq.). And as souls cannot be perfectly united in charity unless minds agree in faith, he wishes all to hold the same faith: “One Lord, one faith,” and this so perfectly one as to prevent all danger of error: “that henceforth we be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive” (Eph. iv., 14): and this he teaches is to be observed, not for a time only – “but until we all meet in the unity of faith…unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ” (13). But, in what has Christ placed the primary principle, and the means of preserving this unity? In that – “He gave some Apostles – and other some pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” (11-12). (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

Karol Wojtyla was plainly a revolutionary, not a Catholic, one whose background as a student of Jan Tyranowski was on full display at the “Second” Vatican Council, as was noted by Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki in Tumultuous Times:

His [Wojtyla’s] stand on atheism puzzled many of the bishops, especially those from Communist countries. Archbishop Wojtyla believed that the human person should find the truth on their own and that conversion was unnecessary:

“Wojtyla was deeply convinced that personalist ethics–which stresses the uniqueness and inviolability of the human personality–would never allow the imposing of ideas on anyone. He took the same line when the council discussed the problems of atheism–a question that vexed the Council Fathers almost from the beginning to the end of Vatican II. ‘It is not the Church’s role to lecture unbelievers,’ Wojtyla declared on taking the floor on October 21, 1964. ‘We are involved a quest along with our fellow men. …Let us avoid moralizing or suggesting that we have a monopoly on the truth.’ …Talk at the council of actual ‘relations with atheism’ meant dialogue with Marxists.” (Carl Bernstein and Marco Politi, His Holiness, pp. 102-103, quoted in Tumultuous Times, p. 540.)

These were revolutionary ideas, especially at a time when the West braced for nuclear war and when much of the world was held captive under Communist tyranny. He further expressed his ecumenical and Modernist persuasions a week later.

“He began with several previously expressed comments on the Church and the world and the president of the session was on the point of stopping him, when he quickly and skillfully captivated his audience and silenced all the noise in the auditorium. In a loud and distinct voice, he clearly explained that the Church should no longer pose as the sole dispenser of Truth and Goodness… She should, he went on, be in the world but not above it. …The Church must alter her teaching; she should encourage Revelation and no longer dictate it.” (Catherine and Jacques Legrand, John Paul II, p. 68.)

“Although he was only forty-two when the council opened, Wojtyla made eight oral interventions in the council hall, a rather high number, and often spoke in the name of large groups of bishops from Eastern Europe. (Altogether he made 22 interventions, oral and written.) He was an unusually active member of various drafting groups for Gaudium et Spes, and even a chief author of what was called the ‘Polish draft.’ His voice as crucial to the passage of the document on religious liberty.””(William Madges and Michael Daly, Vatican II: Forty Personal Stories, p. 33)

The Modernists Yves Congar, Henri de Lubac and Jean Danielou worked closely with Archbishop Wojtyla to draft the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World [Gaudium et Spes]. In his speeches of September 23 and 28, 1965, Wojtyla championed the heresy of religious liberty and encouraged dialogue with atheists.

“Archbishop Wojtyla then took up the question of atheism as a pastoral issue, as part of the Church’s ‘dialogue with everyone.’ …The Church’s dialogue with atheism should begin not with arguments or proofs about the existence of God, but with a conversation about the human person’s interior liberty.” (Tumultuous Times, pp. 540-541.)

How ironic is it that two trained actors, Karol Wojtyla and Ronald Reagan, were on the world stage together during most of the 1980s? Both used style and image–and carefully staged events–to communicate a sense of “connectedness” to the public.

Wojtyla did so even more effectively than Reagan, conveying the impression to so many of us “in the pew” that he was going to come to our “rescue,” that all we had to do was to be “patient” and to “fight in our parishes for the Faith,” that our “Holy Father” would send us “good bishops” to undo the harm of the “bad bishops.” The mass communications media provided Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II with the perfect stage for many of us to “connect” with him on an emotional level as our spiritual “father,” making many of us inclined to overlook some of the things he said and did (constant support for ecumenism and religious liberty, the Assisi event, the “papal” extravaganza”Masses” replete with the incorporation of pagan rituals of one sort or another) for a very long period of time.

Some of us put aside the use of our reason to to “hope against hope” that Wojtyla/John Paul II was going to “restore” the Catholic Church after the darkness of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII and Giovanni Montini/Paul The Sick.

1. It was within a week of his election on October 16, 1978, that John Paul II said that he wanted to see priests back in their clerical garb and women religious back in their habits. He’s traditionally-minded, I told people repeatedly.

2. He tried to put catechesis back on the “right track” with the issuance of the post-synodal exhortation Sapientia Christianae

3. He told off the Communists in Poland in June of 1979, saying in a “homily” at an outdoor “Mass” in Victory Square in Warsaw that no one could ever remove Christ as the center of history. See, he’s not an appeaser like Paul VI, I said triumphantly.

4. John Paul II whacked the American bishops over the head but good during his first pilgrimage to the United States of America in October of 1979, using some of their own pastoral letters against them, knowing full well that they were not enforcing their own documents. He told Catholic educators assembled at The Catholic University of America on October 7, 1979, and I was one of those educators in attendance that day, that the Church needed her theologians to be “faithful to the magisterium.” I gloated as John Paul II said this, staring in the direction of the notorious dissenter named Father Charles Curran, a priest of the Diocese of Rochester, New York, who was sitting two rows in back of me, dressed in a jacket and tie. It was later that same day that the “pope” denounced abortion as the nine justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America sat in the very front row of chairs on the Capitol Mall during an outdoor “Mass,” saying in a most stirring manner, “And when God gives life, it is forever!”

5. Two months thereafter, in December of 1979, Father Hans Kung was declared by the then named Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to be ineligible to hold a chair in theology at Tubingen University in Germany (all right, all right, “other arrangements” were made to permit Kung to stay). “Let the heads roll,” I told my classes at Allentown College of Saint Francis de Sales that day. “Let the heads of the dissenters roll.”

6. John Paul II wanted to correct abuses in the Novus Ordo Missae, using his Holy Thursday letter, Dominicae Cenae, February 24, 1980, going so far as to state:

As I bring these considerations to an end, I would like to ask forgiveness-in my own name and in the name of all of you, venerable and dear brothers in the episcopate-for everything which, for whatever reason, through whatever human weakness, impatience or negligence, and also through the at times partial, one-sided and erroneous application of the directives of the Second Vatican Council, may have caused scandal and disturbance concerning the interpretation of the doctrine and the veneration due to this great sacrament. And I pray the Lord Jesus that in the future we may avoid in our manner of dealing with this sacred mystery anything which could weaken or disorient in any way the sense of reverence and love that exists in our faithful people. (Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Dominicae Cenae, February 24, 1980.)

See, I said proudly, to one and all. He’s going to “fix” things, isn’t he? The issuance of Inaestimabile Donum two months later, which I would wave in the faces of “disobedient” conciliar priests for about a decade before it began to dawn on me that there was going to be no enforcement of “rules” in an ever-changing and ever-changable liturgical abomination, was “proof,” I said at the time, of how the “pope” is “turning things around in right direction. I wasn’t the only one. The Angelus, a publication of the Society of Saint Pius X, commented favorably on some of these things itself in 1980.

7. “Pope” John Paul II personally opened a Perpetual Adoration Chapel in the Piazza Venezia in Rome at the behest of Mother Teresa of Calcutta, also mandating daily periods of Solemn Eucharistic Adoration in each of the four major basilicas in Rome. He used his pilgrimage to South Korea in 1984 to state that he wanted to see Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration established in all of the parishes of the world.

8. Father Charles Curran was finally denied in 1986 the right to teach as a theologian in Catholic institutions and Father Matthew Fox, O.P., was forbidden to teach in Catholic institutions by John Paul II’s “defender of the faith,” Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger, and dismissed from the Order of Preachers in 1992  for his New Age “creation spirituality” beliefs.

9. John Paul II would take various American “bishops” to task during the quinquennial (or ad limina apostolorum) visits, pointedly asking the late “Bishop” John Raymond McGann of the Diocese of Rockville Center in 1983 why sixteen of his diocese’s parishes did not have regularly scheduled confessions during the recently concluded Easter Triduum. Being dissatisfied with McGann’s answer (“Our priests are very busy, Your Holiness”), John Paul said, “Excellency, I was not too buy to hear Confessions in Saint Peter’s on Good Friday.” McGann got into further trouble later that day in April of 1983 when he was talking at lunch with John Paul and the other New York Province “bishops” about how most young people today do not know their faith and are thus in theological states of error, inculpable for their ignorance. John Paul II put down his soup spoon and said, “I agree with you. You are correct. However, the bishops and priests who are responsible for these young people being in states of error go directly to Hell when they die.” McGann turned ashen, reportedly having difficulty eating for three days. “Ah, what a pope we have,”  I said when learning of this from Roman contacts.

10. Silvio Cardinal Oddi, then the Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, told me personally in his office on the Via della Concilazione on October 10, 1984, the very day that the first “indult” for the Immemorial Mass of Tradition was issued, “I want the Mass of Saint Pius V back! The Pope wants the Mass of Saint Pius V back! We will get the Mass of Saint Pius V back!” Cardinal Oddi explained that there was much opposition to what the “pope” wanted to, that he had to move cautiously and with conditions. He made it clear, however, that it was the mind of the “pope” for the “old Mass” to return.

Sure, sure sure, I was always “uncomfortable” with ecumenism in particular and the whole ethos of Vatican II in general. John Paul II was going to “fix” things, I convinced myself. No more “Hamlet on the Tiber” as had been experienced under Giovanni Montini/Paul VI. I simply ignored those things that contradicted my delusional concept of who Karol Wojtyla was and what he believed, that he had been a leading revolutionary at the “Second” Vatican Council and was a thorough-going Modernist in both theological and philosophical terms.

I ignored the simple fact that Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II praised false ecumenism in his inaugural address to the “cardinals” in the Basilica of Saint Peter on Tuesday, October 17, 1978, the exact thing that his “successor,” Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI would do on Wednesday, April 20, 2005.

I ignored John Paul II’s embrace of the “archbishop” of Canterbury, who was no more a clergyman than was Mike Huckabee when he plied his trade as a Baptist “minister.” I winced a little when John Paul II praised Martin Luther during his pilgrimage to the Federal Republic of Germany (also known at the time as “West Germany”) in 1980.

I buried my head in the sand after the egregious sacrileges associated with the Day of World Prayer for Peace in Assisi, Italy, on October 27, 1986. I could not defend the indefensible, considering the Assisi event to have been an “aberration” rather than an actual symptom of the apostate heart beating within Karol Wojtyla’s very soul.

And I was vocal, at least privately in my conversations with fellow “conservative” Catholics, about liturgical abominations at “papal” “Masses (half-naked women bringing up to the “gifts,” rock music at “youth” “Masses,” praise offered to voodoo witch doctors, etc.). Face facts that Wojtyla was not a Catholic? Perish the thought, which is what I did for a very long time.

Well, this is what I chose to ignore about the man in whom I project a devotion to the Catholic Faith that did not beat within his heart of Modernism and the “New Theology”:

1. John Paul II, himself an active participant in the proceedings of the “Second” Vatican Council, told us that that council was a “milestone,” “an event of utmost importance in the almost two thousand year history of the Church, and consequently in the religious and cultural history of the world.” He told us so at the very beginning of his reign of ruin and destruction, a day after his “election:”

First of all, we wish to point out the unceasing importance of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, and we accept the definite duty of assiduously bringing it into affect. Indeed, is not that universal Council a kind of milestone as it were, an event of the utmost importance in the almost two thousand year history of the Church, and consequently in the religious and cultural history of the world.

However, as the Council is not limited to the documents alone, neither is it completed by the ways applying it which were devised in these post-conciliar years. Therefore we rightly consider that we are bound by the primary duty of most diligently furthering the implementation of the decrees and directive norms of that same Universal Synod. This indeed we shall do in a way that is at once prudent and stimulating. We shall strive, in particular, that first of all an appropriate mentality may flourish. Namely, it is necessary that, above all, outlooks must be at one with the Council so that in practice those things may be done that were ordered by it, and that those things which lie hidden in it or—as is usually said—are “implicit” may become explicit in the light of the experiments made since then and the demands of changing circumstances. Briefly, it is necessary that the fertile seeds which the Fathers of the Ecumenical Synod, nourished by the word of God, sowed in good ground (cf. Mt 13: 8, 23)—that is, the important teachings and pastoral deliberations should be brought to maturity in that way which is characteristic of movement and life. (First Urbi et Orbi Radio message, October 17, 1978.)

John Paul II sure found “those things which lie hidden in” the “Second” Vatican Council” as he made manifestly explicit what he believed was “implicit” in his vaunted “Second” Vatican Council, fooling the sappy likes of me by throwing some conciliar fairy dust in our eyes as he talked about getting priests back in their clerical garb and consecrated religious sisters back into their habits and demanding doctrinal orthodoxy from theologians even though he was not doctrinally orthodox and let most of the ultra-progressive conciliar revolutionaries remain in perfectly good standing as sons and daughters of what he claimed was the Catholic Church.

2. John Paul II’s brand of “spiritual ecumenism,” whose basic premises were categorically condemned by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928, permitted him to enter freely into places of false worship and to be treated as an inferior by his hosts. He used numerous occasions to proclaim abject apostasies, including when he visited a Jewish synagogue in Mainz, Germany, in 1980:

“The first dimension of this dialogue, that is, the meeting between the people of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God, and that of the New Covenant, is at the same time a dialogue within our Church, that is to say, between the first and second part of her Bible … Jews and Christians, as children of Abraham, are called to be a blessing to the world. By committing themselves together for peace and justice among all men and peoples.” Cited by John Vennari in Secret of John Paul II’s Success. The full text is available on the Vatican website in Italian and German. Here are is the relevant passages in these two languages, including a paragraph not cited by Mr. Vennari:

Non si tratta soltanto della correzione di una falsa visuale religiosa del popolo ebraico, che nel corso della storia fu in parte concausa di misconoscimenti e persecuzioni, ma prima di tutto del dialogo tra le due religioni, che – con l’islam – poterono donare al mondo la fede nel Dio unico e ineffabile che ci parla, e lo vogliono servire a nome di tutto ii mondo.

La prima dimensione di questo dialogo, cioè l’incontro tra il popolo di Dio del Vecchio Testamento, da Dio mai denunziato (cf. Rm 11,29), e quello del Nuovo Testamento, è allo stesso tempo un dialogo all’interno della nostra Chiesa, per così dire tra la prima e la seconda parte della sua Bibbia. In proposito dicono le direttive per l’applicazione della dichiarazione conciliare “Nostra Aetate”: “Ci si sforzerà di comprendere meglio tutto ciò che nell’Antico Testamento conserva un valore proprio e perpetuo…, poiché questo valore non è stato obliterato dall’ulteriore interpretazione del Nuovo Testamento, la quale al contrario ha dato all’Antico il suo significato più compiuto, cosicché reciprocamente il Nuovo riceve dall’Antico luce e spiegazione” (Nostra Aetate, II) (Meeting with the representatives of the Hebrew community, Mainz, Germany, 17 November 1980, Italian)

Dabei geht es nicht nur um die Berichtigung einer falschen religiösen Sicht des Judenvolkes, welche die Verkennungen und Verfolgungen im Lauf der Geschichte zum Teil mitverursachte, sondern vor allem um den Dialog zwischen den zwei Religionen, die – mit dem Islam – der Welt den Glauben an den einen, unaussprechlichen, uns ansprechenden Gott schenken durften und stellvertretend für die ganze Welt ihm dienen wollen.

Die erste Dimension dieses Dialogs, nämlich die Begegnung zwischen dem Gottesvolk des von Gott nie gekündigten Alten Bundes, ist zugleich ein Dialog innerhalb unserer Kirche, gleichsam zwischen dem ersten und zweiten Teil ihrer Bibel. Hierzu sagen die Richtlinien für die Durchführung der Konzilserklärung ”Nostra aetate“: ”Man muß bemüht sein, besser zu verstehen, was im Alten Testament von eigenem und bleibendem Wert ist…, da dies durch die spätere Interpretation im Licht des Neuen Testaments, die ihm seinen vollen Sinn gibt, nicht entwertet wird, so daß sich vielmehr eine gegenseitige Beleuchtung und Ausdeutung ergibt“. (Meeting with the representatives of the Hebrew community, Mainz, Germany, 17 November 1980, German.)

This apostasy, which was a cornerstone of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II’s ecumenical beliefs, has been condemned by the authority of the Catholic Church, and he knew this to be so:

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. [28] “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.” [29] 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 [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.)

Did God the Holy Ghost permit the Catholic Church to be “wrong” on the matter of the invalidity of the Old Covenant prior to the “Second” Vatican Council? Can God change His Mind? Can God contradict Himself after the better part of over two millennia? Anyone who asserts this is an apostate of the first order. Apostates are not deserving of canonization by the authority of the Catholic Church as they have expelled themselves from her maternal bosom.

3. The theological foundation of John Paul II’s spiritual ecumenism was laid by the late Abbe Paul Couturier, who was a disciple of the late Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J. John Paul II cited Couturier in footnote fifty of Ut Unum Sint, May 25, 1995, an encyclical letter that was the exact opposite of Pope Pius XI’s Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928. Walter “Cardinal” Kasper, who was appointed as the President of the “Pontifical” Council for Promoting Christian Unity by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II on February 21, 2001, praised the “spiritual ecumenism” of Abbe Paul Couturier in a “reflection” published at the beginning of the conciliar church’s 2008 “Week of Prayer for Christian Unity” that replaced the Catholic Church’s Chair of Unity Octave that runs from the Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter in Rome on January 18 to January 25:

In taking a fresh look at Paul Wattson’s original intention, we note an important development in the understanding of the Week of Prayer. While Wattson maintained that the goal of unity was the return to the Catholic Church, Abbé Paul Couturier of Lyons (1881-1953) gave a new impetus to this Week in the 1930s, ecumenical in the true sense of the word. He changed the name “Church Unity Octave” to “Universal Week of Prayer for Christian Unity”, thus furthering a unity of the Church that “Christ wills by the means he wills”.

Paul Couturier’s 1944 spiritual testament is very important, profound and moving; it is one of the most inspired ecumenical texts, still worth reading and meditating on today. The author speaks of an “invisible monastery”, “built of all those souls whom, because of their sincere efforts to open themselves to his fire and his light, the Holy Spirit has enabled to have a deep understanding of the painful division among Christians; an awareness of this in these souls has given rise to continuous suffering and as a result, regular recourse to prayer and penance”.

Paul Couturier can be considered the father of spiritual ecumenism. His influence was felt by the Dombes Group and by Roger Schutz and the Taizé Community. Sr Maria Gabriella also drew great inspiration from him. Today, his invisible monastery is at last taking shape through the growing number of prayer networks between Catholic monasteries and non-Catholics, spiritual movements and communities, centres of male and female religious, Bishops, priests and lay people. (Charting the road of the ecumenical movement.)

It is interesting to note that Kasper praised the work of the 1910 “World Missionary Conference” in Edinburgh, Scotland, that was much praised by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI throughout the course of the year 2010. Ratzinger/Benedict, who has praised Abbe Paul Couturier himself as the “father of ‘spiritual ecumenism,'” knows that Pope Pius XI had condemned this false ecumenism. Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II knew this as well. Neither cared. Apostates do not care. Apostates do not get canonized by the authority of the Catholic Church.

4. John Paul II presided over the “rehabilitation” of the long deceased Father Antonio Rosmini, forty of whose theological propositions had been condemned in 1887 by Pope Leo XIII. This “rehabilitation,” which was engineered by the then prefect of the conciliar church’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger, represented a direct application of John Paul II’s and Benedict XVI’s apostate belief that past dogmatic pronouncements and papal decrees are conditioned by the historical circumstances in which they were made, requiring them to be “adjusted,” if not overturned, at other times. This view, of course, has been condemned repeatedly by the authority of the Catholic Church, but it was the very foundation of the Rosmini decision, which was vital to pave the way for his own conciliar “beatification,” engineered by Ratzinger and approved by Wojtyla/John Paul II. Here is part of the text of the “Note” issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on July 1, 2001, that reveals the “true then, not true now” mentality that united John Paul II and the future Benedict XVI:

The events following Rosmini’s death required a certain distancing of the Church from his system of thought and, in particular, from some of its propositions. It is necessary to consider the principal historical-cultural factors that influenced this distancing which culminated in the condemnation of the “40 Propositions” of the Decree Post obitum of 1887.

The first factor is the renewal of ecclesiastical studies promoted by the Encyclical Aeterni Patris (1879) of Leo XIII, in the development of fidelity to the thought of St Thomas Aquinas. The Papal Magisterium saw the need to foster Thomism as a philosophical and theoretical instrument, aimed at offering a unifying synthesis of ecclesiastical studies, above all in the formation of priests in seminaries and theological faculties, in order to oppose the risk of an eclectic philosophical approach. The adoption of Thomism created the premises for a negative judgement of a philosophical and speculative position, like that of Rosmini, because it differed in its language and conceptual framework from the philosophical and theological elaboration of St Thomas Aquinas.

A second factor to keep in mind is the fact that the condemned propositions were mostly extracted from posthumous works of the author. These works were published without a critical apparatus capable of defining the precise meaning of the expressions and concepts used. This favoured a heterodox interpretation of Rosminian thought, as did the objective difficulty of interpreting Rosmini’s categories, especially, when they were read in a neo-Thomistic perspective. (Note on the Force of the Doctrinal Decrees Concerning the Thought and Work of Fr Antonio Rosmini Serbati; please see Appendix A below for the view of a ultra-progressive conciliar revolution on the revolutionary meaning of this “note.”)

There are two things that stand out in this passage of the “note” reversing Pope Leo XIII’s condemnation of the propositions of Father Antonio Rosmini.

First, “Cardinal Ratzinger,” with the full approval and “papal” benediction of John Paul II, essentially said that Pope Leo XIII was too stupid to understand the complexity of Rosmini’s admittedly ambiguous work, leading to that pontiff’s misunderstanding of that work. Ratzinger’s contention was that the “misunderstanding” served the Church well at the time as, in essence, most other people would have come to the same conclusions as they lacked the “tools” to unlock the “true” meaning hidden deep within Rosmini’s words. Ratzinger, of course, had those “tools” at his disposal, most fortunately for the cause of conciliar “truth,” you understand.

Second, Pope Leo XIII’s “rigidity,” if you will, was caused by his “adoption” of Thomism that created the “premises for a negative judgment” of Rosmini’s work. Ratzinger was asserting that Pope Leo XIII “adopted” Thomism in Aeterni Patris rather than providing us with a cogent summary of how pope after pope had endorsed  the work of the Angelic Doctor and his Scholasticism as the official philosophy of the Catholic Church:

But, furthermore, Our predecessors in the Roman pontificate have celebrated the wisdom of Thomas Aquinas by exceptional tributes of praise and the most ample testimonials. Clement VI in the bull ‘In Ordine;’ Nicholas V in his brief to the friars of the Order of Preachers, 1451; Benedict XIII in the bull ‘Pretiosus,’ and others bear witness that the universal Church borrows luster from his admirable teaching; while St. Pius V declares in the bull ‘Mirabilis’ that heresies, confounded and convicted by the same teaching, were dissipated, and the whole world daily freed from fatal errors; others, such as Clement XII in the bull ‘Verbo Dei,’ affirm that most fruitful blessings have spread abroad from his writings over the whole Church, and that he is worthy of the honor which is bestowed on the greatest Doctors of the Church, on Gregory and Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome; while others have not hesitated to propose St. Thomas for the exemplar and master of the universities and great centers of learning whom they may follow with unfaltering feet. On which point the words of Blessed Urban V to the University of Toulouse are worthy of recall: ‘It is our will, which We hereby enjoin upon you, that ye follow the teaching of Blessed Thomas as the true and Catholic doctrine and that ye labor with all your force to profit by the same.’ Innocent XII, followed the example of Urban in the case of the University of Louvain, in the letter in the form of a brief addressed to that university on February 6, 1694, and Benedict XIV in the letter in the form of a brief addressed on August 26, 1752, to the Dionysian College in Granada; while to these judgments of great Pontiffs on Thomas Aquinas comes the crowning testimony of Innocent VI: ‘is teaching above that of others, the canonical writings alone excepted, enjoys such a precision of language, an order of matters, a truth of conclusions, that those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error.’

The ecumenical councils, also, where blossoms the flower of all earthly wisdom, have always been careful to hold Thomas Aquinas in singular honor. In the Councils of Lyons, Vienna, Florence, and the Vatican one might almost say that Thomas took part and presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers, contending against the errors of the Greeks, of heretics and rationalists, with invincible force and with the happiest results. But the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none of the Catholic Doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of conclave to lay upon the altar, together with sacred Scripture and the decrees of the supreme Pontiffs, the ‘Summa’ of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration.

A last triumph was reserved for this incomparable man — namely, to compel the homage, praise, and admiration of even the very enemies of the Catholic name. For it has come to light that there were not lacking among the leaders of heretical sects some who openly declared that, if the teaching of Thomas Aquinas were only taken away, they could easily battle with all Catholic teachers, gain the victory, and abolish the Church. A vain hope, indeed, but no vain testimony. (Pope Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris, August 4, 1879.)

The rejection of Scholasticism by John Paul II and Benedict XVI has made it possible for the ultimate triumph of the former’s concept of “living tradition” which the latter termed as the “hermeutic of continuity and discontinuity,” which is simply a repackaging of the condemned Modernist proposition concerning the nature of dogmatic truth that Pope Saint Pius X dissected in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907, and that Pope Pius XII condemned anew in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.

Thus it is that the rejection of the nature of dogmatic truth, which is in and of itself a rejection of the very immutability of God and represents a denial, therefore, of His essence as God, has been used to justify the new ecclesiology, episcopal collegiality, false ecumenism, interreligious dialogue and prayer services, religious liberty, separation of Church and State, undermining the Council of Trent’s Decree on Justification, treating the “clergy” of various Protestant sects as having valid orders even while maintaining the official position of the Catholic Church, and any number of other matters that time simply does not me to enumerate yet again. Undermine the nature of dogmatic truth, my good and very few readers, and you make the triumph of concilairism possible.

The list above, which is hardly exhaustive, contains only those things that I chose to ignore in the early years of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II’s “Petrine Ministry” as I served as one of his principal cheerleaders and admirers.

Vast is the amount of damage that Wojtyla/John Paul II did to the Catholic Faith. Vast. (For a few excerpts of “Blessed” John Paul II’s praise of false religions, please see the appendix in Another Day In The Life Of An Antichrist.)

Wojtyla/John Paul II issued the heretical Catechism of the Catholic Church in 1993 (Although I had inserted a link to a crique of that “catechism” as found on the website of the United States of America district website of the Society of Saint Pius X, an alert reader wrote to me this morning to say that the link no longer worked. The original article, appended below, has been broken up into four parts and has been archived on the Society of Saint Pius X website: Is the New Catechism Catholic? Part 1. For your convenience, that I did copy the text as an appendix in an article that was posted in early-2009. You can find the full text of “The New Catechism: Is It Catholic” appended below), ten years after he had promulgated a new code of canon law that permitted Protestants and the Orthodox to receive what purports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service.

It was in 1994 that the soon-to-be “canonized” Wojtyla/John Paul II, breaking with the entire Tradition of the Catholic Church permitted girls and women to serve as the extension of the hands of priests/presbyters during the stagings of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service.

Perhaps most egregiously of all, though, was how Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II destroyed the integrity of Our Lady’s Psalter, her Most Holy Rosary, by promulgating a “new” set of mysteries, the “Luminous Mysteries.”

Some in the secular media have focused in the past few years on Wojtyla/John Paul II’s role in protecting members of his clergy accused of committing sins against nature against children and others. There has been additional focus placed on the numerous financial scandals that unfolded during his 9,666 day “pontificate,” including the Polish-born prelate’s efforts to protect his personal body guard and the head of the scandal-plagued, Mafia-influenced and infiltrated Vatican’s Institute for Works of Religion (Vatican Bank) from 1971 to 1989, the late “Archbishop” Paul Casimir Marcinkus, and on his refusal to do anything to sanction the sociopath who founded the Legionaries of Christ, the late Father Marcial Maciel Degollado (see Unimaginable Deceit and Duplicity).

These are certainly legitimate concerns and would be almost insuperable obstacles to any true pontiff’s canonization process as an important element of a pope’s sanctity is the faithful fulfillment of the duties imposed by his being the visible head of the true Church on earth, the Successor of Saint Peter, the Vicar of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Indeed, doubting not for one moment the personal piety of Pope Pius XII, for example, and the great physical sufferings that he endured as a soldier in the Army of Christ in the latter years of his life, any authentic examination of his own life’s work in a true canonization process conducted by the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints in the Catholic Church undoubtedly would have to weigh his horrific judgment in appointing the very Modernist revolutionaries who have given us Holy Mother Church’s counterfeit ape. Among those revolutionaries are the first two of the conciliar “popes”, of course, Angelo Roncalli, who was appointed by Pope Pius XII as the Papal Nuncio to France on December 23, 1944 and elevated to the College of Cardinals on January 12, 1953, in conjunction with his being named three days later as the Patriarch of Venice, and Giovanni Montini, who was appointed to be the Archbishop of Milan on November 1, 1954, after spending years in the service of the Vatican Secretariat of State. Not to be overlooked as horrific appointees of Pope Pius XII, obviously, are the likes of Fathers Annibale Bugnini, C.M., and Ferdinando Antonelli, O.F.M., both of whom worked assiduously to plan and commence the liturgical revolution that would result on April 3, 1969, in Giovanni Montini/Paul The Sick‘s promulgation of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service on April 3, 1969. Dishonorable mention must be made of the papal appointments of Americanists Richard Cushing (Boston), Francis Spellman (New York) and John Dearden.

These are not minor matters. The prelate appointed to be the Defender of the Faith in the case of a legitimate consideration of the canonization of Pope Pius XII would make a case against canonization on the grounds of the poor judgment demonstrated by these appointments that resulted in such a catastrophe for souls as so many horrific offenses were given to God in the decades since those appointments were made. The Promoter of the Cause  would counter with other considerations, including the late pope’s personal piety, his unquestioned moral probity and, among many other considerations working in the cause’s favor, his strong condemnation in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, of the “new theology” that was being used by professors to warp the mind of forming a young German seminarian by the name of Joseph Alois Ratzinger.

The existence of even proven miracles is not a guarantee that a particular candidate whose cause for canonization is underway will result in a positive outcome as not every miracle worker is seen to be fit to be raised to the altars of Holy Mother Church even though that person may well be a saint in Heaven as a member of the Church Triumphant. Not every member of the Church Triumph is worthy of being raised to the altars of Holy Mother Church, who has been judicious and cautious in her selection of candidates. Saint Joan of Arc’s cause had to wait fourteen days shy of the 489th anniversary of her unjust execution by the English on May 30, 1431 for her canonization by Pope Benedict XV on May 20, 1920. The causes of Saints Thomas More and Saint John Fisher had to wait almost 400 years for their canonization by Pope Pius XI on May 19, 1935.

On the contrary, though, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II “beatified” and “canonized” more people than had been done in preceding four hundred years prior to the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958. John Paul II”canonized” 482 people from the first “canonization” ceremony at which he officiated, on June 20, 1922, to his last extravaganza, which was held on his eighty-fourth birthday, May 16, 2004 (see Table of the Canonizations during the  reign of John Paul II). He beatified 996 people between April 29, 1979 and October 3, 2004. The “heroic virtue” listed for one woman ‘beatified by John Paul II in the early-1990s was that she prayed her Rosary every day! This prompted me to tell a then-friend in the conciliar clergy, “Hey, I got a shot at this!” (I was joking.) My now former friend laughed heartily after I had made comment. Saying one’s prayers every day is not “heroic.” It is our duty.

Beatification and canonization are not “merit badges” to be bestowed as a result of the appearance of popularity based upon emotional and, all too frequently, highly manipulative myth-making about a candidate’s true legacy. See, for example, all of the myth-making behind the making of “saint” Josemaria Escriva Balaguer y Albas (see Not The Work of God), as a prime example of this. What is happening at present with Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, whose cheerleading enthusiast I served for well over fifteen years until the altar girl fiasco in 1994 that prompted me to recognize once and for all that “fighting to stop abuses in the Novus Ordo” was a complete waste of time as it was the abuse par excellence, dwarfs the efforts–and they were gargantuan and quite sophisticated and well-financed–that pushed along the cause of Josemaria Escriva Balaguer y Albas, the founder of Opus Dei.

There is so much more that can be written. Those who want to exult in the “beatification” of an enemy of Christ the King and thus of the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood will do so. No one can be forced to accept the evidence that is presented to them for his consideration.

The stuff of conciliarism is the stuff of eternal perdition, not that of sanctity, less yet, of course of authentic beatification and canonization. It is that simple.

Some in the “resist but recognize” movement may assert in the coming days that not even the “canonization” process is infallibly protected, that no one has to “believe” in the ‘canonization” of the man, John Paul II, whom they criticized endlessly and whose apostasies caused some of them to write massive books while still recognizing him as “the pope.” Others may try to assert that it is even unsettled as to whether the solemn act of their true “pope’s” canonization of a given person is infallibly protected. The intellectual gymnastics will boggle the mind as some people attempt to avoid looking at the apostate elephant who is sitting on their very chests and crushing their ability to see the logical conclusions that must be drawn from all of the evidence that some of them have presented in very clear and convincing terms: that those who defect from even one article of the Catholic Faith expel themselves from the maternal bosom of Holy Mother Church and cannot hold her ecclesiastical offices legitimately.

For a much more comprehensive examination of the heresies, apostasies, sacrileges and blasphemies of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, please see the late Father Luigi Villa’s Karol Wojtyla Beatified?- Never!. I also happen to have a copy of a catalogue of many of Wojtyla/John Paul II’s hideous words and actions. It’s entitled The Great Facade. Perhaps you have heard of it. Yup, those in the “resist while recognize” crowd are going to have to “celebrate” the “obligatory memorials” of “Saint” John XXIII and “Saint” John Paul II. Will they “resist” this while “recognizing the “pope,” Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis the Insidious Little Pest, who will preside over these false canonizations?

Although Wojtyla is now scheduled to be “canonized” at the “two for the price of one” ceremony later this year, Father Villa was indeed correct in stating that the late “Petrine Minister” would never be beatified or canonized by the Catholic Church as the Polish “pope” was an enemy of the Catholic Faith whose beliefs, words and actions were hideous in the sight of the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Holy Trinity, and who enabled and protected clerical abusers to the point of having his own malfeasance in office come to light eleven and one-half years ago when the files of the Archdiocese of Boston were laid bare for public review (see the partial list of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II’s “nogoodniks” as provided in the appendix below.)

“As one perceptive reader of this site asked rhetorically, “I wonder if the Koran he [Wojtyla/John Paul II]  kissed is now considered a ‘relic!’ Good question. I’ve got my own: Am I a relic of some sort for having shaken his hand on six different occasions and for having served as his lector as he staged the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service in his private chapel in the Apostolic Palace on Wednesday, May 26, 1993? Is the Rosary he gave me after that liturgical service a “relic”?

Yes, absurd questions. The whole situation is absurd.

It does not matter that only a tiny fraction of Catholics in the world have drawn those conclusions as truth does not depend upon how many people see it.

How many people saw the truth in Noe’s admonitions?

No one outside of his family.

How many people saw the truth that those who opposed Arianism, such as Saint Athanasius, were correct?

How many bishops in England remained faithful to Holy Mother Church at the time of Henry VIII’s revolt against Christ the King?

Just one.

Truth does not depend upon the fact that a tiny fraction of mostly warring Catholics now. It is that simple.

Once again, seeing the truth does not make anyone one whit better than those who do not. Each of us must work out our salvation in fear and in trembling. We must persevere in Charity and to perform the Supernatural and Corporal Works of Mercy. We must spend time in prayer before Our Lord’s Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament. And we must  pray our Rosaries with fervor and devotion as we keep shielding ourselves with her Brown Scapular and trust in the power of her Miraculous Medal.

We are not assured of our salvation just because we have been sent the graces by Our Lady to understand that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is false and is a tool of the adversary to lead souls away from sanctity as they become convinced that Holy Mother Church can contradict herself or that it is possible for true popes, whether now or in the past, to give his error and defective liturgies.

Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II kept his word to be faithful to the “Second” Vatican Council. Perhaps that is reason enough for the conciliarists to have “beatified” him two years ago now and to “canonize” him later this year no matter those false rites and doctrines and no matter his track record of “episcopal” appointments and the protection of men who were as morally derelict in the discharge of their duties as he was of his. Revolutionaries must always seek to lionize their own.

We must remain confident that the Triumph of her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart will vanquish the foes of the Faith in the world and in the counterfeit church of conciliarism once and for all. Every Rosary we pray, offered to the Most Holy Trinity through that same Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, will plant a few seeds for this triumph.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

 July 3, 2013

Two For The Price Of One

Part One

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Let the “canonization” circus begin yet again.

In days gone by, of course, conciliar revolutionaries such as Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II sought to give the appearance of “conservatism” while advancing with great vigor their false doctrines and sacrilegious liturgical rites, which the fourth conciliar “Petrine Minister” “beatified” Pope Pius IX, who had convened the [First] Vatican Council in 1869, and Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, who convened the “Second” Vatican Council on October 11, 1962, on the same day, September 3, 2000, which was, of course, the feast day of Pope Saint Pius X in the Catholic Church (not the conciliar church). This double “beatification” was designed to placate “conservatives” and traditionally-minded Catholics attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism while at the same time establishing the precedent of “beatifying” each of the conciliar “pontiffs” whose very beliefs and practices had been condemned by various general councils and true popes of the Catholic Church over the centuries.

Ah, there is to be no more placating “conservatives” and/or traditionally-minded Catholics, you know, those “rigid,” “Pharisaical” people who want to return to the big, bad “no church” of the “preconciliar” era, under the “Petrine Ministry” of Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis. The revolution is in full throttle under the Jesuit lay revolutionary of Italian parentage and Argentinian birth. Francis The Flexible apparently is ready to stage a “double canonization” featuring none other than the corpulent old Modernist from Bergamo, Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, and the New Theologian from Poland, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II:

Wojtyla “instant saint” but along with John XXIII, the “Good Pope.” This morning at the Vatican cardinals and bishops who are members of the “ordinary” Congregation of Saints, were meeting to examine various cases before the summer. Among these, the miracle attributed to the intercession of Blessed John Paul II, the instantaneous healing of a woman. The last crucial step before Francesco’s final seal of approval, which will lead to the canonization in record time, of the Polish Pontiff beatified two years ago.

But surprisingly, the cardinals and bishops will also discuss another subject, added in the last few days, the canonization of John XXIII, the Pope who convened the Second Vatican Council, who died fifty years ago in June and was beatified in 2000. An unexpected turn of events, which attests to the desire to celebrate the two sanctifications together, bringing the halo and the universal worship to both the Pope of Bergamo, and Pope John Paul II.

The most likely date for the ceremony during which Roncalli and Wojtyla could be canonized is next December, immediately after the conclusion of the Year of Faith, given that the initial hypothesis of October seems less and less feasible due to time constraints and organizational problems . Cardinal Angelo Amato, Prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, after the decision taken this morning, will meet Francesco and in the next few days the news of the two Popes Saints may be made permanently official.

It was John Paul II, in September 2000, during the Jubilee year, to proclaim John XXIII, Blessed, joining in the celebration was also the beatification of Pius IX, the last Pope king. On that occasion, moving Roncalli up his first step to the altar, was the miracle of healing to Sister Caterina Capitani, which occurred in 1966.

As is well known according to the canonical norms for canonization it is necessary to recognise a second miracle that occurs after the beatification. Over the last thirteen years there have been various reports of blessings and alleged miracles attributed to the intercession of Roncalli, but until recently it was not known that one of them had passed the scrutiny of medical consultations and theologians from the Vatican’s “factory of saints”. It is therefore possible that they have decided to shorten the timeframe. The Pope has the ability, if desired, to supersede the recognition of the miracle and proceed nonetheless with a canonization after having heard the advice of the cardinals in the congregation. (The Good Apostate and Figure of Antichrist, sainted within the year.)

Yes, step this way.

Get your programs in advance.

Watch the conciliar revolutionaries ape the practice of Roman emperors, who had busts of themselves placed throughout the Roman Empire, and of the French and Bolshevik and Maoist revolutionaries in establishing cults of personality that will continue after their deaths. The conciliar “canonization” process is a farce, and it is been used in many instances, including the upcoming “double canonization” of Roncalli and Wojtyla, to place beyond question the legitimacy of the false doctrines, liturgical rites and pastoral practices of conciliarism by claiming that those responsible for their promulgation and institutionalization enjoy the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven.

As time is brief, permit to enumerate some of the “heroic virtues” of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII that make him worthy of an ideological “canonization” at the hands of the current chief ideologist of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis.

Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII’s Heroic Conciliar Virtue One

A Desire for A Rupture With The Past

Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII was the first conciliar “pope.” It was his call for an “opening” of the Catholic Church to the world, that helped to make Catholics as immune to truth as Protestants and outright unbelievers, Roncalli/John XXIII started a process of breaking down the sensus Catholicus of ordinary Catholics that has now spiraled out of control, producing a situation where most Catholics in the world today have attitudes, beliefs and practices that are identical with their non-Catholic friends and acquaintances.

Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII praised the Protestant syncretist Roger Schutz, who was placed in “Heaven” by Ratzinger/Benedict almost immediately after Schutz’s murder on Tuesday, August 16, 2005, by calling the syncretist center of Taize, France, as “that little springtime. Father Didier Bonneterre included this telling sentence in his book on the cast of characters, including Roncalli, who used the Liturgical Movement as the means to enshrine false ecumenism:

After the death of John XXIII, his brother, Giuseppe Roncalli, visited Taize. During his visit, Roncalli remarked to his grandson, “It was my brother the Pope who began what will come out of Taize.” (Father Didier Bonneterre, The Liturgical Movement: Roots, Radicals, Results. Kansas City, Missouri: Angelus Press, 2002. p 101.)

More to the point, however, was that Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII was a firm believer in the “new ecclesiology,” that heresy that considers Protestant sects as part of the “Church of Christ,” a view he outlined to Schutz himself shortly before he, Roncalli/John XXIII, had to answer to God for his multiple apostasies at the moment of his Particular Judgment on June 3, 1963:

Q. Did Brother Roger himself testify explicitly to that development?

A. Father Alois (Roger Schutz’s successor at Taize): “He understood very early in his life that in order to pass on the Gospel to young people a reconciliation of Christians was necessary. After John XXIII and the Second Vatican Council, he considered that the time for reconciliation had come. He often told how, during his last meeting with John XXIII, in 1963, he was eager to hear a spiritual testament from the pope and he asked him about the place of Taizé in the Church. John XXIII replied, making circular gestures with his hands, ‘The Catholic Church is made of concentric circles that are always bigger and bigger.’ The pope did not specify in which circle he saw Taizé but Brother Roger understood that the pope wanted to say to him: you are already within, continue simply on this path. And that is what he did. (RORATE CÆLI)

Yes, Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII desired to have a complete rupture with the past, which is why he convened the “Second” Vatican Council, which opened on October 11, 1962:

Among these documents was a note by Msgr. Loris Capovilla, secretary of John XXIII in which, on behalf of the Pope, he gave instructions for the redaction of the Bull Humanae salutis, the bull that convened the Council. On the text typed by Capovilla, there are side notes handwritten by John XXIII himself. It is clearly affirmed in this text, Marco Roncalli assures us, that the Pope did not desire to follow the course of Vatican I because “neither in its substance nor in its form would it correspond to the present day situation.” We also see a rebuttal of the Church’s position on the temporal order taught by Pius IX, because now, the note emphasizes, “the Church demonstrates that she wants to be mater et magistra [mother and teacher].”

This revelation is, in my opinion, an extraordinary confirmation that John XXIII did not want any continuity with the previous Ecumenical Council convened and directed by Pius IX. When he affirmed that Vatican II must not follow Vatican I “either in its substance or in its form,” he was saying that it should be completely different; this is not far from saying that it should be the opposite.

Indeed, to say that the substance should be different means that the doctrine defended must be different. To say that the form should be different means that the militant character of Vatican I’s documents must be avoided. Incidentally, the reason alleged to explain a change in the Church’s position regarding the world – that now she wants to be mother and teacher – confirms that he wanted Vatican II to steer clear of the militant spirit of Vatican I. (Atila Sinka Guimaraes, John XXIII Wanted A Rupture With The Past.)

Angelo Roncalli/XXIII’s desire for a rupture for the past was first signified by the furtherance of the liturgical revolution that had begun under the direction of Fathers Ferdinando Antonelli, O.F.M., and Annibale Bugnini, C.M., during the last ten years of the pontificate of Pope Pius XII:

Pius XII succeeded by John XXIII. Angelo Roncalli. Throughout his ecclesiastical career, Roncalli was involved in affairs that place his orthodoxy under a cloud. Here are a few facts:

As professor at the seminary of Bergamo, Roncalli was investigated for following the theories of Msgr. Duchesne, which were forbidden under Saint Pius X in all Italian seminaries. Msgr Duchesne’s work, Histoire Ancienne de l’Eglise, ended up on the Index.

While papal nuncio to Paris, Roncalli revealed his adhesion to the teachings of Sillon, a movement condemned by St. Pius X. In a letter to the widow of Marc Sagnier, the founder of the condemned movement, he wrote: The powerful fascination of his [Sagnier’s] words, his spirit, had enchanted me; and from my early years as a priest, I maintained a vivid memory of his personality, his political and social activity.”

Named as Patriarch of Venice, Msgr.Roncalli gave a public blessing to the socialists meeting there for their party convention. As John XXIII, he made Msgr. Montini a cardinal and called the Second Vatican Council. He also wrote the Encyclical Pacem in Terris. The Encyclical uses a deliberately ambiguous phrase, which foreshadows the same false religious liberty the Council would later proclaim.

John XXIII’s attitude in matters liturgical, then, comes as no surprise. Dom Lambert Beauduin, quasi-founder of the modernist Liturgical Movement, was a friend of Roncalli from 1924 onwards. At the death of Pius XII, Beauduin remarked: “If they elect Roncalli, everything will be saved; he would be capable of calling a council and consecrating ecumenism…”‘

On July 25, 1960, John XXIII published the Motu Proprio Rubricarum Instructum. He had already decided to call Vatican II and to proceed with changing Canon Law. John XXIII incorporates the rubrical innovations of 1955–1956 into this Motu Proprio and makes them still worse. “We have reached the decision,” he writes, “that the fundamental principles concerning the liturgical reform must be presented to the Fathers of the future Council, but that the reform of the rubrics of the Breviary and Roman Missal must not be delayed any longer.”

In this framework, so far from being orthodox, with such dubious authors, in a climate which was already “Conciliar,” the Breviary and Missal of John XXIII were born. They formed a “Liturgy of transition” destined to last — as it in fact did last — for three or four years. It is a transition between the Catholic liturgy consecrated at the Council of Trent and that heterodox liturgy begun at Vatican II. 

The “Antiliturgical Heresy” in the John XXIII Reform

We have already seen how the great Dom Guéranger defined as “liturgical heresy” the collection of false liturgical principles of the 18th century inspired by Illuminism and Jansenism. I should like to demonstrate in this section the resemblance between these innovations and those of John XXIII.

Since John XXIII’s innovations touched the Breviary as well as the Missal, I will provide some information on his changes in the Breviary also. Lay readers may be unfamiliar with some of the terms concerning the Breviary, but I have included as much as possible to provide the “flavor” and scope of the innovations.

1.   Reduction of Matins to three lessons. Archbishop Vintimille of Paris, a Jansenist sympathizer, in his reform of the Breviary in 1736, “reduced the Office for most days to three lessons, to make it shorter.” In 1960 John XXIII also reduced the Office of Matins to only three lessons on most days. This meant the suppression of a third of Holy Scripture, two-thirds of the lives of the saints, and the whole of the commentaries of the Church Fathers on Holy Scripture. Matins, of course, forms a considerable part of the Breviary.

2.   Replacing ecclesiastical formulas style with Scripture. “The second principle of the anti-liturgical sect,” said Dom Guéranger, “is to replace the formulae in ecclesiastical style with readings from Holy Scripture.” While the Breviary of St. Pius X had the commentaries on Holy Scripture by the Fathers of the Church, John XXIII’s Breviary suppressed most commentaries written by the Fathers of the Church. On Sundays, only five or six lines from the Fathers remains.

3.   Removal of saints’ feasts from Sunday. Dom Gueranger gives the Jansenists’ position: “It is their [the Jansenists’] great principle of the sanctity of Sunday which will not permit this day to be ‘degraded’ by consecrating it to the veneration of a saint, not even the Blessed Virgin Mary. A fortiori, the feasts with a rank of double or double major which make such an agreeable change for the faithful from the monotony of the Sundays, reminding them of the friends of God, their virtues and their protection — shouldn’t they be deferred always to weekdays, when their feasts would pass by silently and unnoticed?”

John XXIII, going well beyond the well-balanced reform of St. Pius X, fulfills almost to the letter the ideal of the Janenist heretics: only nine feasts of the saints can take precedence over the Sunday (two feasts of St. Joseph, three feasts of Our Lady, St. John the Baptist, Saints Peter and Paul, St. Michael, and All Saints). By contrast, the calendar of St. Pius X included 32 feasts which took precedence, many of which were former holy days of obligation. What is worse, John XXIII abolished even the commemoration of the saints on Sunday.

4.   Preferring the ferial office over the saint’s feast. Dom Guéranger goes on to describe the moves of the Jansenists as follows: “The calendar would then be purged, and the aim, acknowledged by Grancolas (1727) and his accomplices, would be to make the clergy prefer the ferial office to that of the saints. What a pitiful spectacle! To see the putrid principles of Calvinism, so vulgarly opposed to those of the Holy See, which for two centuries has not ceased fortifying the Church’s calendar with the inclusion’ of new protectors, penetrate into our churches!”

John XXIII totally suppressed ten feasts from the calendar (eleven in Italy with the feast of Our Lady of Loreto), reduced 29 feasts of simple rank and nine of more elevated rank to mere commemorations, thus causing the ferial office to take precedence. He suppressed almost all the octaves and vigils, and replaced another 24 saints’ days with the ferial office. Finally, with the new rules for Lent, the feasts of another nine saints, officially in the calendar, are never celebrated. In sum, the reform of John XXIII purged about 81 or 82 feasts of saints, sacrificing them to “Calvinist principles.”

Dom Gueranger also notes that the Jansenists suppressed the feasts of the saints in Lent. John XXIII did the same, keeping only the feasts of first and second class. Since they always fall during Lent, the feasts of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Gregory the Great. St. Benedict, St. Patrick, and St. Gabriel the Archangel would never be celebrated. (Liturgical Revolution)

Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII’s desire for a “rupture with the past” was necessary for there to be an “ecclesiogenesis,” if you will, that is, the birth of a new church, a counterfeit church that is the ape of the Catholic Church.

Part of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII’s rupture with the past involved a “reconciliation” with the ancient enemies of Christ the King. Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII first “absolved” the Jews of any the guilt of the shedding of the Most Precious Blood of the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ before issuing an edict on March 21, 1959, ordered the removal of the word “perfidious” from the Prayer for the Jews in the Good Friday liturgy, thus setting the stage for the “Second” Vatican Council’s Nostra Aetate, October 28, 1965:

True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ;(13) still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ. (Nostra Aetate, October 28, 1965.)

It just happens to be that this false “teaching” requires us to believe that the following Fathers and Doctors of Holy Mother Church were wrong, that she herself was misled until the “truth” dawned during the age of conciliarism at the beginning of the reign of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII as he prepared the way for its blossoming in Nostra Aetate:

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 God?

(3) If, then, the Jews fail to know the Father, if they crucified the Son, if they thrust off the help of the Spirit, who should not make bold to declare plainly that the synagogue is a dwelling of demons? God is not worshipped there. Heaven forbid! From now on it remains a place of idolatry. But still some people pay it honor as a holy place. (Saint John Chrysostom: Eight Homilies Against the Jews)

Do not add to your sins by saying that the Covenant is both theirs and ours. Yes, it is ours, but they lost it forever. (St. Barnabas)

So clearly was the transition then made from the Synagogue to the Church that, when the Lord gave up His soul, the veil of the Temple was rent in two. (Pope St. Leo the Great)

Since His spouse, the Synagogue, refused to receive Him, Christ answered: “This is a harlot!” and gave her a bill of divorce. (St. Vincent Ferrer)

Ungrateful for favors and forgetful of benefits, the Jews return insult for kindness and impious contempt for goodness. They ought to know the yoke of perpetual enslavement because of their guilt. See to it that the perfidious Jews never in the future grow insolent, but that they always suffer publicly the shame of their sin in servile fear. (Pope Gregory IX)

Crucifiers of Christ ought to be held in continual subjection. (Pope Innocent III)

It would be licit, according to custom, to hold Jews in perpetual servitude because of their crime. (St. Thomas Aquinas)

Let the Gospel be preached to them and, if they remain obstinate, let them be expelled. (Pope Leo VII)

The Jews wander over the entire earth, their backs bent over and their eyes cast downward, forever calling to our minds the curse they carry with them. (St. Augustine)

As wanderers, they must remain upon the earth until their faces are filled with shame and they seek the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. (Pope Innocent III)

One who dies a Jew will be damned. (St. Vincent Ferrer)

Those of the seed of Abraham who live according to the Law of Moses and who do not believe in Christ before death shall not be saved; especially they who curse this very Christ in the synagogues; who curse everything by which they might obtain salvation and escape the vengeance of fire. (St. Justin the Martyr)

Judaism, since Christ, is a corruption; indeed, Judas is the image of the Jewish people: their understanding of Scripture is carnal; they bear the guilt for the death of the Savior, for through their fathers they have killed Christ. The Jews held Him; the Jews insulted Him; the Jews bound Him; they crowned Him with thorns; they scourged Him; they hanged Him upon a tree. (St. Augustine)

Jews are slayers of the Lord, murderers of the prophets, enemies and haters of God, adversaries of grace, enemies of their fathers’ faith, advocates of the devil, a brood of vipers, slanderers, scoffers, men of darkened minds, the leaven of Pharisees, a congregation of demons, sinners, wicked men, haters of goodness! (St. Gregory of Nyssa)

Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII’s Heroic Conciliar Virtue Two

Patience With Errors in the World to Open What He Thought Was the Catholic Church to That Same World of Error

Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII was an unreconstructed Modernist, a man who never gave up his support for The Sillon even after it had been condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910, going to say as to damn the “holy Saint Pius X’s” condemnation of The Sillon with faint praise as “affection and well-meaning” when writing to the widow of The Sillon’s founder, Marc Sangnier, upon the latter’s death on May 28, 1950:

Letter of the Apostolic Nuncio, Archbishop Angelo Roncalli, later Pope John XXIII, to Rénée Besançon Sangnier on the occasion of the death of her husband, Marc Sangnier, Pentecost Sunday, 28 May 1950

Paris, 6 June 1950

Madame Marc Sangnier
36, Boulevard Raspail, Paris

Madame,

…. I heard Marc Sangnier speak for the first time in Rome around 1903 or 1904 at a meeting of Catholic youth. The powerful charisma of his words and his spirit enthralled me. The most vivid memory of my whole youth is of his personality and his political and social activity.

His noble and frank humility in later accepting the admonition of the holy Pope Pius X – moreover, a very affectionate and well-meaning admonition – were the true measure of his greatness in my eyes.

Souls as capable as his of remaining as faithful and respectful to the Gospel and to the Holy Church are made for the highest ascensions that ensure glory, namely the glory of Christ who knew how to exalt the humble, and even the glory of this world before his contemporaries and posterity for whom the example of Marc Sangnier will remain as lesson and as an encouragement.

On the occasion of his death, my spirit was truly comforted to note that the most high ranking official voices in France joined together unanimously like a mantle of honour to wreathe Marc Sangnier with the Sermon on the Mount. One could not pay greater tribute or praise to the memory of this French emblem whose contemporaries were capable of appreciating the clarity of a deeply Christian soul and a noble simplicity of heart. (Archbishop Angelo Roncalli, Letter to Renee Besancon Sangnier, June 6, 1950.)

In other words, Marc Sangnier was to be admired for having taken the “well-meaning” but, of course, mistaken admonition given him by the “holy Pope Pius X,” not for having abandoned any of The Sillon’s false principles that would serve as the very philosophical foundation of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII’s “Petrine Ministry” and the whole ethos of the “Second” Vatican Council that he announced on January 25, 1959, would be held.

It was at the Opening Mass of the “Second” Vatican Council on October 11, 1962, that Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII laid down the principle of a respect for error that was the driving force of The Sillon:

In these days, which mark the beginning of this Second Vatican Council, it is more obvious than ever before that the Lord’s truth is indeed eternal. Human ideologies change. Successive generations give rise to varying errors, and these often vanish as quickly as they came, like mist before the sun.

The Church has always opposed these errors, and often condemned them with the utmost severity. Today, however, Christ’s Bride prefers the balm of mercy to the arm of severity. She believes that, present needs are best served by explaining more fully the purport of her doctrines, rather than by publishing condemnations.

Not that the need to repudiate and guard against erroneous teaching and dangerous ideologies is less today than formerly. But all such error is so manifestly contrary to rightness and goodness, and produces such fatal results, that our contemporaries show every inclination to condemn it of their own accord—especially that way of life which repudiates God and His law, and which places excessive confidence in technical progress and an exclusively material prosperity. It is more and more widely understood that personal dignity and true self-realization are of vital importance and worth every effort to achieve. More important still, experience has at long last taught men that physical violence, armed might, and political domination are no help at all in providing a happy solution to the serious problems which affect them. (Angelo Roncalli/ John XXIII ‘s Opening Address)

Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII’s belief that errors “often vanish as quickly as they came, like mist before sun” was and remains delusional. This is not a statement in accord with an authentic history of the Catholic Church. Errors have had to be exposed and fought by a multiplicity of means (prayer, fasting, sacrifice, penance, suffering, martyrdom and copious verbal and written condemnations.). Our Lady gave the Rosary to Saint Dominic de Guzman to be a weapon he could use in his preaching against the Albingensians, the forerunners of the Jansenists whose disciples persecuted then Sister Margaret Mary Alacoque so very much because of the revelations given to her by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ about the secrets contained in His Most Sacred Heart. Errors must be exposed and opposed.

Part of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII’s patience with error and openness to the world involve his agreement to the suppression of any mention, no less of criticism, of Communism at the “Second” Vatican Council in order to secure the attendance of “observers” from the heretical and schismatic Russian Orthodox Church:

In preparation for the Council, Catholic bishops around the world were polled by mail by the Office of the Secretariat to learn their opinions on topics to be considered at the Council. Communism topped the list.

However, as documented in the previous chapter, at the instigation of Cardinal Montini, two months before the opening of the Council, Pope John XXIII approved the signing of the Metz Accord with Moscow officials, whereby the Soviets would permit two representatives from the Russian State Church to attend the Council in exchange for absolute and total silence at the Council on the subject of Communism/Marxism.

With the exceptions of Cardinal Montini, who instructed Pope John to enter into negotiations with the Soviets, Cardinal Eugene Tisserant, who signed the Accord, and Bishop Jan Willebrands, who made the final contacts with the representatives of the Russian State Church, the Church Fathers at the Council were ignorant of the existence and nature of the Metz Agreement and the horrendous betrayal that it represented. (Mrs. Randy Engel, The Rite of Sodomy, pp. 1135-1136)

Why didn’t the last Ecumenical Council condemn Communism? A secret accord made at Metz supplies an answer.

Those who pass by the convent of the Little Sisters of the Poor in Borny – on the outskirts of the French city of Metz – never imagine that something of transcendental importance occurred in the residence of Fr. Lagarde, the convent’s chaplain. In a hall of this religious residence in August 1962 – two months before Vatican Council II opened – a secret meeting of the greatest importance between two high-ranking personalities took place.

One dignitary was a Cardinal of the Curia, Eugène Tisserant, representing Pope John XXIII; the other was metropolitan Nikodin, who spoke in the name of the Russian Schismatic Church.

This encounter had consequences that changed the direction of Council, which was already prepared to open. In effect, the meeting at Metz determined a change in the trajectory of the very History of the Church in the 20th century.

What was the matter of such great importance that was resolved at his meeting? Based on the documents that are known today, there it was established that Communism would not be condemned by Vatican Council II. In 1962, The Vatican and the Schismatic Russian Church came to an agreement. According to its terms, the Russian “Orthodox Church” agreed to send observers to Vatican II under the condition that no condemnation whatsoever of communism should be made there (1). 1. Ulysses Floridi, Moscou et le Vatican, Paris: France-Empire, Paris, 1979, pp. 147-48; Romano Amerio, Iota Unum, K.C., MO: Sarto House, 1996, pp. 75-76; Ricardo de la Cierva, Oscura rebelion en la Iglesia, Barcelona: Plaza & Janes, 1987, pp. 580-81. And why were the consequences of such a pact so far-reaching and important?

Because in the 20th century a principal enemy of the Catholic Church was Communism. As such, until Vatican II it had been condemned numerous times by the Magisterium. Moreover, in the early ’60s a new condemnation would have been quite damaging, since Communism was passing through a serious crisis, both internally and externally. On one hand, it was losing credibility inside the USSR since the people were becoming increasingly discontent with the horrendous administrative results of 45 years of Communist demagogy. On the other hand, outside the USSR Communism had not been able to persuade the workers and poor of free countries to take up its banner. In fact, up until that time it had never won a free election. Therefore, the leaders of international Communism decided that it was time to begin to change the appearances of the regime in order to retain the power they had and to experiment with new methods of conquest. So in the ‘60s President Nikita Khrushchev suddenly began to smile and talk about dialogue (2). 2. Plinio Correa de Oliveira, Unperceived Ideological Transshipment and Dialogue, New York: Crusade for a Christian Civilization, 1982, pp. 8-15. This would have been a particularly inopportune moment for the Pope or the Council to issue a formal condemnation, which could have either seriously damaged or possibly even destroyed the Communist regime..

A half secret act

Speaking about the liberty at Vatican II to deal with diverse topics, Professor Romano Amerio revealed some previously unpublished facts. “The salient and half secret point that should be noted,” he stated, “is the restriction on the Council’s liberty to which John XXIII had agreed a few months earlier, in making an accord with the Orthodox Church by which the patriarchate of Moscow accepted the papal invitation to send observers to the Council, while the Pope for his part guaranteed the Council would refrain from condemning Communism. The negotiations took place at Metz in August 1962, and all the details of time and place were given at a press conference by Mgr. Paul Joseph Schmitt, the Bishop of that Diocese [newspaper Le Lorrain, 2/9/63]. The negotiations ended in an agreement signed by metropolitan Nikodim for the Orthodox Church and Cardinal Tisserant, the Dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals, for the Holy See.

“News of the agreement was given in the France Nouvelle, the central bulletin of the French communist party in the edition of January 16-22, 1963 in these terms: ‘Because the world socialist system is showing its superiority in an uncontestable fashion, and is strong through the support of hundreds and hundreds of millions of men, the Church can no longer be content with a crude anti-communism. As part of its dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church, it has even promised there will be no direct attack on the Communist system at the Council.’ On the Catholic side, the daily La Croix of February 15, 1963 gave notice of the agreement, concluding: “‘As a consequence of this conversation, Msgr. Nikodim agreed that someone should go to Moscow carrying an invitation, on condition that guarantees were given concerning the apolitical attitude of the Council.’

“Moscow’s condition, namely that the Council should say nothing about Communism, was not, therefore, a secret, but the isolated publication of it made no impression on general opinion, as it was not taken up by the press at large and circulated, either because of the apathetic and anaesthetized attitude to Communism common in clerical circles or because the Pope took action to impose silence in the matter. Nonetheless, the agreement had a powerful, albeit silent, effect on the course of the Council when requests for a renewal of the condemnation of Communism were rejected in order to observe this agreement to say nothing about it” (3). 3. Romano Amerio, Iota Unum, pp. 65-66. Thus the Council, which made statements on capitalism and colonialism, said nothing specific about the greatest evil of the age, Communism. While the Vatican Monsignors were smiling at the Russian Schismatic representatives, many Bishops were in prison and innumerable faithful were either persecuted or driven underground for their fidelity to the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

The Kremlin-Vatican negotiations

This important information about Vatican-Kremlin negotiations is confirmed in an article ‘The mystery of the Rome-Moscow pact’ published in the October 1989 issue of 30 Dias, which quotes statements made by the Bishop of Metz, Paul Joseph Schmitt. In a February 9, 1963 interview with the newspaper Republicain Lorrain, Mgr. Schmitt said:

“It was in our region that the ‘secret’ meeting of Cardinal Tisserant with archbishop Nikodin occurred. The exact place was the residence of Fr. Lagarde, chaplain for the Little Sister of the Poor in Borny [on the outskirts of Metz]. Here for the first time the arrival of the prelates of the Russian Church was mentioned. After this meeting, the conditions for the presence of the Russian church’s observers were established by Cardinal Willebrands, an assistant of Cardinal Bea. Archbishop Nikodin agreed that an official invitation should be sent to Moscow, with the guarantee of the apolitical character of the Council” (4). 4. 30 Dias, October 1988, pp. 55-56.

The same source also transcribed a letter of Bishop Georges Roches regarding the Pact of Metz:

“That accord was negotiated between the Kremlin and the Vatican at the highest level .… But I can assure you …. that the decision to invite Russian Orthodox observers to Vatican Council II was made personally by His Holiness John XXIII with the encouragement of Cardinal Montini, who was counselor to the Patriarch of Venice when he was Archbishop of Milan…. Cardinal Tisserant received formal orders to negotiate the accord and to make sure that it would be observed during the Council” (5). 5. Ibid. p. 57

In a book published some time after this, German theologian Fr. Bernard Häring – who was secretary-coordinator at the Council for the redaction of Gaudium et Spes – revealed the more profound reason for the ‘pigeon-holing’ of apetition that many conciliar Fathers signed asking Paul VI and the Council to condemn Communism: “When around two dozen Bishops requested a solemn condemnation of Communism,” stated Fr. Häring, “Msgr. Glorieux …. and I were blamed like scapegoats. I have no reason to deny that I did everything possible to avoid this condemnation, which rang out clearly like a political condemnation. I knew that John XXIII had promised Moscow authorities that the Council would not condemn communism in order to assure the participation of observers of the Russian Orthodox church” (6). . . .

1. Catholic doctrine has always emphatically condemned Communism. It would be possible, should it be necessary, to publish a small book composed exclusively of anti-communist pontifical documents.

2. It would have been natural, therefore, for Vatican Council II, which met in Rome from 1962 to 1965, to have confirmed these condemnations against the greatest enemy of the Church and Christian Civilization in the 20th century.

3. In addition to this, 213 Cardinals, Archbishops, and Bishop solicited Paul VI to have the Council make such a condemnation. Later, 435 Conciliar Fathers repeated the same request. The two petitions were duly delivered within the time limits established by the Internal Guidelines of the Council. Nonetheless, inexplicably, neither petition ever came up for debate. The first was not taken into consideration. As for the second, after the Council had closed, it was alleged that it had been “lost” by Mgr. Achille Glorieux, secretary of the commission that would have been entrusted with the request.

4. The Council closed without making any express censure of Communism. Why was no censure made? The matter seemed wrapped in an enigmatic fog. Only later did these significant facts on the topic appear. The point of my article is to gather and present information from several different sources for the consideration of my reader. How can the actions of the Catholic Prelates who inspired, ordered, followed and maintained the decisions of the Pact of Metz be explained? I leave the answer to my reader.  (The Council of Metz)

Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII’s Metz Accord stands in sharp contrast with Pope Pius XI’s firm and unequivocal condemnation of Communism in Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937:

See to it, Venerable Brethren, that the Faithful do not allow themselves to be deceived! Communism is intrinsically wrong, and no one who would save Christian civilization may collaborate with it in any undertaking whatsoever. Those who permit themselves to be deceived into lending their aid towards the triumph of Communism in their own country, will be the first to fall victims of their error. And the greater the antiquity and grandeur of the Christian civilization in the regions where Communism successfully penetrates, so much more devastating will be the hatred displayed by the godless. (Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937.)

Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII’s Heroic Conciliar Virtue Three

Peace Through the United Nations, Not Christ the King and Our Lady’s Fatima Message

Angelo Roncalli/John XIII’s humanist manifesto, Pacem in Terris (April 11, 1963), was the antithesis of Pope Pius XI’s Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio (December 23, 1922), containing the following telling passage that could have come straight from The Sillon that he supported even after its condemnation by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique:

It is, therefore, especially to the point to make a clear distinction between false philosophical teachings regarding the nature, origin, and destiny of the universe and of man, and movements which have a direct bearing either on economic and social questions, or cultural matters or on the organization of the state, even if these movements owe their origin and inspiration to these false tenets. While the teaching once it has been clearly set forth is no longer subject to change, the movements, precisely because they take place in the midst of changing conditions, are readily susceptible of change. Besides, who can deny that those movements, in so far as they conform to the dictates of right reason and are interpreters of the lawful aspirations of the human person, contain elements that are positive and deserving of approval?

For these reasons it can at times happen that meetings for the attainment of some practical results which previously seemed completely useless now are either actually useful or may be looked upon as profitable for the future. But to decide whether this moment has arrived, and also to lay down the ways and degrees in which work in common might be possible for the achievement of economic, social, cultural, and political ends which are honorable and useful: these are the problems which can only be solved with the virtue of prudence, which is the guiding light of the virtues that regulate the moral life, both individual and social. Therefore, as far as Catholics are concerned, this decision rests primarily with those who live and work in the specific sectors of human society in which those problems arise, always, however, in accordance with the principles of the natural law, with the social doctrine of the church, and with the directives of ecclesiastical authorities. For it must not be forgotten that the Church has the right and the duty not only to safeguard the principles of ethics and religion, but also to intervene authoritatively with Her children in the temporal sphere, when there is a question of judging the application of those principles to concrete cases. (Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, Pacem in Terris, April 11, 1963.)

In other words, who cares about the Social Reign of Christ the King. Not the conciliar “popes,” including the first of their number, Roncalli/John XIII, who was sold bold as to decide not to release the authentic Third Secret of Fatima in 1960, reportedly telling aides that “This is not for our time.” (For a purported rendition of the Third Secret of Fatima that was published recently, please see The True Third Secret of Fatima?)

Yes, we can see the results, can we not?

Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII’s expressed support within the text of Pacem in Terris for the United Nations was a direct contradiction of Pope Pius XI’s mockery of the League of Nations and all other such organizations as found in his first encyclical letter, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922. See for yourselves:

142. The United Nations Organization (U.N.) was established, as is well known, on June 26, 1945. To it were subsequently added lesser organizations consisting of members nominated by the public authority of the various nations and entrusted with highly important international functions in the economics, social, cultural, educational and health fields. The United Nations Organization has the special aim of maintaining and strengthening peace between nations, and of encouraging and assisting friendly relations between them, based on the principles of equality, mutual respect, and extensive cooperation in every field of human endeavor.

143. A clear proof of the farsightedness of this organization is provided by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights passed by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948. The preamble of this declaration affirms that the genuine recognition and complete observance of all the rights and freedoms outlined in the declaration is a goal to be sought by all peoples and all nations.

144. We are, of course, aware that some of the points in the declaration did not meet with unqualified approval in some quarters; and there was justification for this. Nevertheless, We think the document should be considered a step in the right direction, an approach toward the establishment of a juridical and political ordering of the world community. It is a solemn recognition of the personal dignity of every human being; an assertion of everyone’s right to be free to seek out the truth, to follow moral principles, discharge the duties imposed by justice, and lead a fully human life. It also recognized other rights connected with these.

145. It is therefore Our earnest wish that the United Nations Organization may be able progressively to adapt its structure and methods of operation to the magnitude and nobility of its tasks. May the day be not long delayed when every human being can find in this organization an effective safeguard of his personal rights; those rights, that is, which derive directly from his dignity as a human person, and which are therefore universal, inviolable and inalienable. This is all the more desirable in that men today are taking an ever more active part in the public life of their own nations, and in doing so they are showing an increased interest in the affairs of all peoples. They are becoming more and more conscious of being living members of the universal family of mankind. (Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, Pacem in Terris, April 11, 1963.)

Because the Church is by divine institution the sole depository and interpreter of the ideals and teachings of Christ, she alone possesses in any complete and true sense the power effectively to combat that materialistic philosophy which has already done and, still threatens, such tremendous harm to the home and to the state. The Church alone can introduce into society and maintain therein the prestige of a true, sound spiritualism, the spiritualism of Christianity which both from the point of view of truth and of its practical value is quite superior to any exclusively philosophical theory. The Church is the teacher and an example of world good-will, for she is able to inculcate and develop in mankind the “true spirit of brotherly love” (St. Augustine, De Moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae, i, 30) and by raising the public estimation of the value and dignity of the individual’s soul help thereby to lift us even unto God.

Finally, the Church is able to set both public and private life on the road to righteousness by demanding that everything and all men become obedient to God “Who beholdeth the heart,” to His commands, to His laws, to His sanctions. If the teachings of the Church could only penetrate in some such manner as We have described the inner recesses of the consciences of mankind, be they rulers or be they subjects, all eventually would be so apprised of their personal and civic duties and their mutual responsibilities that in a short time “Christ would be all, and in all.” (Colossians iii, 11)

Since the Church is the safe and sure guide to conscience, for to her safe-keeping alone there has been confided the doctrines and the promise of the assistance of Christ, she is able not only to bring about at the present hour a peace that is truly the peace of Christ, but can, better than any other agency which We know of, contribute greatly to the securing of the same peace for the future, to the making impossible of war in the future. For the Church teaches (she alone has been given by God the mandate and the right to teach with authority) that not only our acts as individuals but also as groups and as nations must conform to the eternal law of God. In fact, it is much more important that the acts of a nation follow God’s law, since on the nation rests a much greater responsibility for the consequences of its acts than on the individual.

When, therefore, governments and nations follow in all their activities, whether they be national or international, the dictates of conscience grounded in the teachings, precepts, and example of Jesus Christ, and which are binding on each and every individual, then only can we have faith in one another’s word and trust in the peaceful solution of the difficulties and controversies which may grow out of differences in point of view or from clash of interests. An attempt in this direction has already and is now being made; its results, however, are almost negligible and, especially so, as far as they can be said to affect those major questions which divide seriously and serve to arouse nations one against the other. No merely human institution of today can be as successful in devising a set of international laws which will be in harmony with world conditions as the Middle Ages were in the possession of that true League of Nations, Christianity. It cannot be denied that in the Middle Ages this law was often violated; still it always existed as an ideal, according to which one might judge the acts of nations, and a beacon light calling those who had lost their way back to the safe road.

There exists an institution able to safeguard the sanctity of the law of nations. This institution is a part of every nation; at the same time it is above all nations. She enjoys, too, the highest authority, the fullness of the teaching power of the Apostles. Such an institution is the Church of Christ. She alone is adapted to do this great work, for she is not only divinely commissioned to lead mankind, but moreover, because of her very make-up and the constitution which she possesses, by reason of her age-old traditions and her great prestige, which has not been lessened but has been greatly increased since the close of the War, cannot but succeed in such a venture where others assuredly will fail. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

Pacem in Terris was written by a man possessed of the Judeo-Masonic ethos of The Sillon.

Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio was written by a Catholic and a true Successor of Saint Peter.

What counts for “heroic virtues” in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, supported, of course, by claims of miraculous deeds, are hideous in the sight of the true God of Divine Revelation as the counterfeit church of conciliarism is not the Catholic Church.

Spend time in prayer before the Real Presence of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour if this is possible where you live. Keep praying as many Rosaries each day as your state-in-life permits. Offer everything up to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Know this and know it well: the Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph in the end!

Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.