A Guide to the Roncalli and Wojtyla “Canonizations”

[Publisher-Editor’s Note: This page will be the home of previously published articles at Christ or Chaos, concerning the the “canonizations” of two Modernists, Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII and Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, by the Modernist Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis (who may or may not be “assisted” by the Modernist Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI), in five days, Low Sunday, April 27, 2014. It would be pointless to rewrite what has been written and rewritten over and over again in the past four years. This new pages thus provides “one stop shopping” for all your false “canonization” needs. Thank you. Thomas A. Droleskey, Ph.D.]

              April 6, 2010

“Canonizing” A Man Who Protected Moral Derelicts

by Thomas A. Droleskey, Ph.D.

Even though many defenders of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI are eagerly throwing Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II under the conciliar bus as the currently reigning false “pontiff” continues to be besieged by press reports about the continuing scandals caused by the systematic recruitment, retention and promotion of sodomites into the ranks of the conciliar clergy and hierarchy, Ratzinger/Benedict himself continues to sing the praises of his conciliar predecessor, doing so on Monday in Holy Week, March 29, 2010:

VATICAN CITY, MARCH 29, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Physical weakness never affected Pope John Paul II’s “rock-like faith,” Benedict XVI affirmed today during a Mass for the fifth anniversary of the Polish Pontiff’s death.

Benedict XVI celebrated a Mass for the repose of John Paul II’s soul today though the anniversary of his death is April 2, which this year falls on Good Friday.

In his homily that reflected on the biblical readings for the liturgy, the Pontiff spoke of the charity toward Christ shown by Mary when she anointed his feet with oil.

He said that John Paul II’s whole life unfolded in the sign of charity, “of this capacity to give himself in a generous way, without reservations, without measure, without calculation.”

“What moved him,” the Pope said, “was love for Christ, to whom he had consecrated his life, a superabundant and unconditional love. It is precisely because he drew ever closer to God in love, that he was able to make himself a fellow wayfarer with the man of today, spreading in the world the perfume of the love of God.”

The Holy Father said that those who worked closely with John Paul II could sense his “certainty ‘of contemplating the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living,’ [...] a certainty that accompanied him in the course of his existence and that, in a particular way, was manifested during the last period of his pilgrimage on this earth.”

The Pontiff affirmed that John Paul II’s “progressive physical weakness [...] never affected his rock-like faith, his luminous hope, his fervent charity.”

“He let himself be consumed by Christ, for the Church, for the whole world,” the Pope said. “His was a suffering lived to the end for love and with love.”

Benedict XVI gave a special greeting to Polish pilgrims who participated in the Mass, saying their countryman represents a particular responsibility for them.

He said: “The life and work of John Paul II, a great Pole, can be a reason for pride for you. However it is necessary for you to remember that this is also a great call to be faithful witnesses of the faith, the hope and the love that he taught us uninterruptedly.” (John Paul II’s Faith Rock-Like at End, Says Pope.)

Past articles on this site have reviewed the various ways in which Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II defected from the Catholic Faith (“Connecting” with Betrayal, Baal, Yes, Most Holy Trinity, No and “Thumbs Up” From a Communist for an Apostate are just three of these articles) and the many ways in which offended God by praising false religions and entering into places of false worship and by the many Novus Ordo travesties over which he presided personally. Instead of reciting all of these matters yet again, I would simply want to present fifty out of probably hundreds, if not thousands, of reasons, namely, Wojtyla’s “episcopal” appointments, arguing against the “canonization” of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II even if had been a true pope and even if the church he headed was in fact the Catholic Church, which we know was not the case.

1. Joseph Bernardin, transferred from being the conciliar archbishop of Cincinnati, Ohio, to being the conciliar archbishop of Chicago, Illinois.

2. Roger Mahony, the conciliar “bishop” of Fresno, California, and then the conciliar “archbishop” of Los Angeles, California.

3. Tod Brown, the conciliar “bishop” of Boise, Idaho, and then the conciliar “bishop” of San Diego, California.

4. Sylvester Ryan, the retired conciliar “bishop” of Monterey, California, who had an actual, honest-to-goodness baby-killer serving on his priest-abuse advisory board  (See the news story at Catholic Citizens.)

5. Robert Brom, the conciliar “bishop” of Duluth, Minnesota, and then the conciliar ‘bishop” of San Diego, California, who presided over the San Diego diocese’s bankruptcy proceedings caused by the cover-up of clergy abuse cases.

6. Patrick McGrath, the conciliar “bishop” of San Jose, California, who, among his other offenses, denied the historicity of the Gospel accounts of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s Passion and Death.

7. George Patrick Ziemann, the disgraced former conciliar “bishop” of Santa Rosa, California.

8. Thomas Joseph O’Brien, the disgraced former conciliar “bishop” of Phoenix, Arizona.

9. Joseph Keith Symons, the disgraced former conciliar “bishop” of Palm Beach, Florida.

10. Daniel Leo Ryan, the disgraced former conciliar “bishop” of Springfield, Illinois.

11. Robert Lynch, the conciliar “bishop” of Saint Petersburg, Florida, who gave encouragement to Michael Schiavo’s efforts to starve and dehydrate his wi

12. Joseph Fiorenza, the former conciliar “archbishop” of Galveston, Houston, Texas, a protege of Joseph “Cardinal” Bernardin who was a thorough supporter of the conciliar revolution.

13. Robert Joseph Banks, a former conciliar auxiliary “bishop” in the Archdiocese of Boston, Massachusetts, and then the conciliar “bishop” of Green Bay, Wisconsin.

13. Bernard Law, the disgraced former conciliar “archbishop” of Boston, Massachusetts, who was appointed to that post by Wojtyla/John Paul II. Law, who presided over the systematic cover-up and protection of predator priests and presbyters in Boston, was appointed by Wojtyla/John Paul II to be the archpriest of the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore in 2004.

14. Thomas Daily, the former conciliar “bishop” of Palm Beach, Florida, and the former conciliar “bishop” of Brooklyn, New York, who was one of Law’s chief enablers in protecting the likes of the notorious Father Paul Shanley.

15. William Murphy, the conciliar “bishop” of Rockville Centre, New York, who was yet another participant in the great Boston-cover-up.

16. Richard Lennon, the conciliar “bishop” of Cleveland, Ohio, who was a major supporter of Bernard Law’s policies while an auxiliary “bishop” there.

17. John McCormick, the conciliar “bishop” of Manchester, New Hampshire, who has been an enabler of predator priests and presbyters there as he had been as an auxiliary “bishop” in Boston, Massachusetts.

18. Matthew Clark, the conciliar “bishop” of Rochester, New York, who said in the 1990s that the Catholic Church would have to find a way to “bless” same-gender “unions.”

19. Kenneth Untener, the late conciliar “bishop” of Saginaw, Michigan, who was an enemy of the Catholic Faith.

20. Harry Flynn, the retired “archbishop” of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota, who was ever tolerant of the “rainbow” agenda and brought disgrace upon himself by terming the late Father Paul Marx, O.S.B., the founder of Human Life International, as an “anti-Semite.”

21. William Levada, created by Wojtyla/John Paul II as conciliar auxiliary “bishop” of Los Angeles in 1983 before being appointed as the conciliar “archbishop” of Portland, Oregon, in 1986, being transferred to San Francisco, California, in 1995.

22. George Niederauer, the conciliar “bishop” of Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1995, promoted by Ratzinger/Benedict to be the conciliar “archbishop” of San Francisco, California, in 2005.

23. Thomas Ludger Dupre, the disgraced retired “bishop” of Springfield, Massachusetts.

24. John Magee, the disgraced conciliar “bishop” of Cloyne, Ireland, and the long-time secretary to Giovanni Montini/Paul VI and Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II.

25. Christoph Schonborn, the conciliar “archbishop” of Vienna, Austria, who has committed one offense against God after another (see Almost Always At Odds With Themselves, Negotiating To Become An Apostate, They Continue to Caricature Themselves, and Meltdown.)

26. Robert Zollitsch, the conciliar “archbishop” of Freiburg in Breisgau, who, of course denied on Holy Saturday, April 11, 2009, that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ did not die on the wood of the Holy Cross in atonement for our sins.

27. Hans Hermann Groer, the late, disgraced “archbishop” of Vienna, Austria, who was removed after “bishops” and members of the laity complained about his predatory behavior, which he denied until the day he died. (See Austria Cardinal Groer Exiled Over Sex Abuse.) Christoph Schonborn is now saying that the then Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger urged Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II to remove Groer, Schonborn’s predecessor, but was stymied for a long time by John Paul II. Just another conciliar voice throwing John Paul II as the Benedict XVI continues to promote the fiction of his late predecessor’s “sanctity” even though no one who protected moral derelicts is possessed of any sense of true sanctity.

28. Jean-Louis “Cardinal” Tauran, appointed as a “bishop” by John Paul II in 1990 and elevated to the conciliar colleges of cardinals in 2003. Ratzinger/Benedict appointed Tauran as the president of the “Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue.” It was in this capacity that he said the following in 2008:

Interviewer: There was a sense that Islam mustn’t monopolise the proceedings?

Tauran: Yes, the people are obsessed by Islam. For example I’m going to India next month and I want to give this message that all religions are equal. Sometimes there are priorities because of particular situations, but we mustn’t get the impression there are first class religions and second class religions.(Interview with Terrasanta.net, a Website of the Holy Land Review.)

29. Walter Kasper, appointed as a “bishop” by John Paul II in 1989 and elevated to the conciliar “college of cardinals” in 2001. Need one say anything more?

30. Bruno Forte, who was recommended by Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger for the conciliar “episcopate” in 2004 despite Forte’s having denied the actual fact of Our Lord’s Bodily Resurrection on Easter Sunday:

Another example of this alarming situation, which threatens to make the Pope’s disciplinary laxity seem strictly conservative by comparison, is the little-noticed story of how Bruno Forte, a priest of the Archdiocese of Naples, was suddenly made a bishop five months ago.

Forte, who last year was brought to the Vatican to preach a Lenten retreat to an already incapacitated Pope, is rumored to be Cardinal Ratzinger’s replacement as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.  How this happened is anybody’s guess.  The rumor has caused a great deal of consternation for one simple reason: Forte is a flaming neo-modernist.  As noted in the Winter 2005 issue of The Latin Mass in a report by its Italian correspondent, Alessandro Zangrando, Forte was a pupil of none other than the infamous Cardinal Walter Kasper.  (In yet another sign of things falling apart at the top, immediately after Kasper’s own elevation to the rank of cardinal he publicly declared to the press that the Old Covenant remains in force and is salvific for the Jews, and that Protestants are under no obligation to convert and become Catholics.) 

Worse still, Zangrando, a respected journalist not given to reckless claims, relates that Forte’s 1994 essay Gesu di Nazaret, storia di Dio, Dio della storia (Jesus of Nazareth, history of God, God of history) reveals Forte as nothing less than “the standard-bearer of theories so radical as to the point of putting in doubt even the historicity of the resurrection of Christ.  The empty tomb, he argues, is a legend tied into the Jewish-Christian ritual performed at the place of Jesus’ burial. It is a myth inherited by the Christians from Jesus’ early disciples. Therefore, the empty tomb, along with other details surrounding the resurrection, is nothing but a ‘proof’ made up by the community. In other words, Forte is trying to change the resurrection of Christ into a myth, into a kind of fairy tale that cannot be proven.”

Forte’s elevation to bishop was rather mysterious. Zangrando notes that Forte’s name did not appear in any list of possible candidates submitted to the Italian Nunciature, and even his ordinary, Cardinal Michele Giordano, Archbishop of Naples, “was reportedly against that appointment.” But, “in an apparent attempt at putting to rest a growing controversy” over Forte’s candidacy, he was personally consecrated a bishop by none other than Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the very man Forte will succeed as head of the CDF, according to the rumors.  Yes, “our only friend in the Vatican” has struck again.  More and more it becomes apparent that this man is perhaps the most industrious ecclesial termite of the post-conciliar epoch, tearing down even as he makes busy with the appearance of building up.  The longer Ratzinger “guards” Catholic doctrine, the more porous the barriers that protect it become.

Indeed, as I have pointed out more than once on these pages, it was Ratzinger who wrote in 1987 (in the second edition of his Principles of Catholic Theology) that the “demolition of bastions” in the Church is “a long-overdue task.”  The Church, he declared, “must relinquish many of the things that have hitherto spelled security for her and that she has taken for granted. She must demolish longstanding bastions and trust solely the shield of faith.” Now it seems that with the bastions all but demolished, even the shield of faith is about to clatter to the ground

There is no doubt the Holy Ghost will save the Church from extinction and bring about her restoration. In the end, no other result is possible. 

Before this happens, however, the difference between extinction and non-extinction may come to be far smaller than even traditionalists might have supposed. On the other hand, the very next Pope could be another Saint Pius X, who will finally take arms against our enemies and impose immediate restorative measures we could scarcely have imagined.   Who knows which way it will go?   All we can do is continue our loyal opposition, pray for the advent of a kingly, militant pope, and hope that the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary will soon be upon us. (Christopher A. Ferrara, Ratzinger Personally Consecrates Neo-Modernist Bishop; this link, not surprisingly, no longer works. All past criticism of the currently reigning “pope” cannot be permitted to made available for public viewing.)

31. Theodore McCarrick, the founding conciliar “bishop” of Metuchen, New Jersey, and later the conciliar “archbishop” of Newark, New Jersey, and Washington, District of Columbia, who indemnified pro-abortion politicians and said openly that men suffering from the affliction of being “attracted” to other men should not be prohibited from studying for the conciliar presbyterate.

32. Emerson Moore, an auxiliary “bishop” of the Archdiocese of New York who engaged in rank immorality and died of auto immune deficiency disease.

33. Eugene Marino, appointed by John Paul II to be the conciliar “archbishop” of Atlanta in 1988 but had to resign two years later after it was revealed that he had gotten married in a civil ceremony in 1988 to a lay-ministerette with whom he had been keeping company.

34. Emil Wcela, appointed by John Paul II to be a conciliar “bishop” of the Diocese of Rockville Centre, New York, despite officials in the Vatican knowing that Wcela was an open supporter of the impossibility known as “woman’s ordination to the priesthood.

35. Jacques Gaillot, the conciliar “bishop” of Evreux, France, from 1982 to 1995 who supported, among other things, the French abortion pill, RU-486 and who “blessed” the union of two men who had entered into a perverted “union.” It took a revolution among the laity in Evreux to effect Gaillot’s forced removal by the Vatican on January 12, 2005. Gaillot remains in perfectly “good standing” in the conciliar structures.

36. Sean Brady, the conciliar “archbishop” of Armagh, Northern Ireland, who has presided over the systematic protection of clerical abusers.

37. Michael Sheehan, the conciliar “archbishop” of Santa Fe, New Mexico, in whose diocese is located one of the institutions most responsible for the phony “rehabilitation” of clerical abusers and who has keep in perfectly good standing the notorious “Father” Richard Rohr and has praised Barack Hussein Obama (see Unfortunate Enough to Be A Baby.)

38. Joseph Adamec, the conciliar “bishop” of Altoona-Johnston, Pennsylvania, who went so far in 2003 as to silence all of his priests and presbyters from criticizing his handling of predators among their ranks.

39. Paul Loverde, the conciliar “bishop” of Arlington, Virginia, who persecuted whistle blower priest Father James Haley (Bishop Loverde, Where is Fr. James Haley?: Letters to Bishop Loverde.)

40. James T. McHugh, the late conciliar “bishop” of Camden, New Jersey, and–for a brief time–Rockville Centre, New York, who was one of the chief agents of promoting the corruption of the innocence and purity of the young by means of explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. (See Mrs. Randy Engel’s The McHugh Chronicles.)

41. Edward Egan, the former conciliar “archbishop” of New York who, as the conciliar “bishop” of Bridgeport, Connecticut, went so far as to assert that his diocese could be held legally liable for the actions of priests as the latter were “independent contractors” paid by their parishes, not by their dioceses.

42. Rembert G. Weakland, the disgraced former conciliar “archbishop” of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, whose warfare against the Faith that was of international scope should have been stopped long before he was forced to resign in disgrace in 2002. He remains in “good standing” in the conciliar structures.

43. Thomas Gumbleton,  a retired conciliar auxiliary “bishop” of Detroit, Michigan, an appointee of the late Giovanni Montini/Paul VI whose work in behalf of moral perversion should have resulted in his suspension decades ago. He remains in “good standing” in the conciliar structures.

44. Sean O’Malley, O.F.M. Cap., the conciliar “archbishop” of Boston, Massachusetts, who has distinguished himself as an ardent defender of the “legacy” of the late United States Senator Edward Moore Kennedy and a sycophantic tool of the ancient enemies of the Catholic Faith by serving the role in early-2009 of a demagogue against Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of Saint Pius X.

45. William Keeler, the former conciliar “archbishop” of Baltimore, Maryland, who specialized in overseeing relations between the conciliar church and adherents of the Talmud, producing a document in 2002, Reflections on Covenant and Mission, that had to be revised in 2009 because of its lack of clarity on several doctrinal points.

46. Howard Hubbard, the conciliar “bishop” of Albany, an appointee of the late Giovanni Montini/Paul VI who has spent the past thirty-three years as a thorough champion of the conciliar religion. Not even an adoption arranged by Catholic Charities in Albany for a “couple” engaged in perversity could prompt Wojtyla/John Paul II to remove him.

47. John Raymond McGann, the conciliar “bishop” of Rockville Centre, New York, from June 24, 1976, to January 4, 2000, who presided over a full-bore implementation of the conciliar revolution in my home diocese, going so far as to persecute traditional-leaning pastors and priests and presbyters. Report after report was sent to Rome, some delivered personally to those close to the late Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II. McGann, who protected his own share of clergy abusers (see Swinging Clubs To Protect The Club).

48. Daniel Pilarczyk, Bernardin’s worthy “successor” as the conciliar “archbishop” of Cincinnati, Ohio, who protected clerical abuses and even had an actual Freemason serving as the archdiocese psychologist who screened the mental and emotional fitness of candidates who were applying to study for the conciliar presbyterate.

49. Donald Wuerl, the conciliar “bishop” of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (since promoted by Ratzinger/Benedict to be the conciliar “archbishop” of Washington, District of Columbia), who has been one of the chief proponents of explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.

50. John Joseph O’Connor, the conciliar “archbishop” of New York, from March 19, 1984, to May 3, 2000, who protected his own share of pederasts in the conciliar clergy and who told the ABC News program Nightline that “God was smiling” on the conversion of a Catholic man to Judaism.

Mind you, this is not even to mention a non-bishop, Father Marcial Maciel Degollado, the late founder of the Legionaries of Christ whom Wojtyla/John Paul II protected despite having incontrovertible proof of his moral depravity.

Like examples could go on interminably if I was not tired enough already of having to think of the theological, moral, and liturgical disaster that the man for whom I once served as a willing cheerleader, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II wrought upon the souls of Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

It is thus laughable to see conciliarists rushing throw Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II under the bus as they defend Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who continues to praise his predecessor’s “sanctity.” An important constituent element of sanctity is the diligent performance of one’s daily duties. John Paul II was derelict in these days by appointing men who, as it should go without saying, committed to the conciliar revolution just as much as he was and looking the other way as reports of moral depravity were placed right square on his “papal” desk.

One of the ironies in Ratzinger/Benedict’s continued praise of the “sanctity” of his predecessor is that it is possible that the late John Paul II may have spoken rather definitively about his inability to help anyone from eternity. Although the report below, which was published nearly three months ago now, does not “prove” anything as dreams are subject to misinterpretation and misrepresentation, it should have conciliarists some pause for reflection. What if the report is true? What if the false “pontiff,” John Paul II, told the husband of a sick woman that he was to pray to “this other priest,” not him, for his wife to be cured? That “other priest,” as you probably read three months ago, was none other than our last true pope, Pope Pius XII? What if the report is true?

Rome, Italy, Jan 19, 2010 / 12:21 pm (CNA).- Some details of the case under investigation regarding a possible miracle attributed to Venerable Pope Pius XII have been made public.  The story features not just one former Pontiff, but two.

On Tuesday morning, Vatican journalist Andrea Tornielli published an article in Il Giornale describing at length the situation which “mysteriously involves” John Paul II.

Tornielli reported that this case was brought to the attention of Benedict XVI shortly before he approved a measure on Dec. 19, 2009 venerating Pope Pius XII’s life of “heroic virtue,” whose cause had been on-hold for the previous two years.

In 2005, a teacher of 31 years of age was expecting her third child in the city of Castellammare di Stabia.  She began to have strong pains, which after many tests and a biopsy, signaled the presence of Burkitt’s lymphoma.  The condition is typified by swollen lymph nodes, often starting in the abdominal region, and the cancer can spread to bone marrow and spinal fluid.  Not only was her health in danger, but that of her unborn child was also threatened.

The woman’s husband first prayed for the intercession Pope John Paul II, who was then only recently buried in the crypt of St. Peter’s.  It wasn’t long before the Holy Father appeared to the woman’s husband in a dream.  The spouse described to Tornielli what he saw that night, “He had a serious face.  He said to me, ‘I can’t do anything, you must pray to this other priest…’  He showed me the image of a thin, tall, lean priest.  I didn’t recognize him; I didn’t know who he might be.”

Several days passed before he, “by chance,” came across a picture of Pope Pius XII in a magazine and recognized him as the man John Paul II had shown him in the dream.

The man wasted no time in bombarding Pius XII with prayers for his wife’s healing and following her very first treatments she was declared free of the cancer, the tumor had disappeared.  In fact, she was cured so quickly that her doctors pondered the notion that they may have originally misdiagnosed the pathology.

The tests and charts were reconsulted and the initial diagnosis was confirmed.

In the absence of the tumor, she had her baby and returned to work.  After some time had gone by, she decided to contact the Vatican regarding her experience.

A local news source, the Sorrento & Dintorni, ran an article on Sunday offering a basic story of the possible miracle and the diocesan response to it.  According to their report, a Tribunal has been organized by Archbishop Felice Cece of Sorrento-Castellammare to determine the nature of the occurrence and whether it will move on to the Vatican.

According to Tornielli, if they decide positively, the case will be sent on to Congregation for the Causes of Saints for investigation by a team of doctors to declare whether the event was explicable by natural means.  If there is no explanation found for the healing, theologians from the Congregation will debate the issue.  Only with their “go-ahead” can a dossier subsequently reach the hands of Pope Benedict XVI for official recognition.

Cardinal Jose Saraiva Martins, Prefect Emeritus of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, told CNA on Monday that there is no telling how much time the entire process might take.

He also mentioned that if a case arrives to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints it is examined in chronological order based on the date of arrival and there are thousands of cases pending review.

However, he added, “exceptions might be made for Popes, etc.”

There was no mention in Tornielli’s report of where the lymphoma had manifested itself in the woman’s body.  According to the National Institute of Health, Burkitt’s lymphoma is treatable and more than half of those diagnosed with the cancer are cured with intensive chemotherapy. (Details of possible Pius XII miracle emerge)

Never lose sight of the fact that John Paul II was a committed Vatican II revolutionary. He told us this the day after his “election” in 1978. I didn’t want to believe him. I thought that he just “had” to say these things, that the Polish “pope” was going to restore the Church after the nightmare that was the “pontificate” of Paul VI. Nope. The Polish “pope” meant every one of these words. Every single one of them:

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.)

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 “beatify” him 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.

I was a fool for not believing that Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II meant every word of what he had uttered on October 17, 1978. I was a fool for ignoring all of the other signs that we right in front of my eyes until I decided to open them once and for all following the “altar girls” fiasco in 1994, at which point I became, even though I did not realize it at the time, a member of the “resist and recognize” movement. Even then, however, my eyes weren’t entirely open as it did not dawn on me that articles that I wrote critical of “John Paul II’s” “apologies” and his sitting as an equal with the Grand Rabbi of Jerusalem and a Mohammedan imam on March 25, 2000, and his refusal to discipline the “bishops” responsible for the protection of perverted clergy (see Time For Plain Talk, written in my early resist and recognize days) simply would not be necessary under the pontificate of a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter.

As I have noted in several articles in the past three years, those in the Motu communities and other venues using the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition will have to start “celebrating” the feasts of some of the “saints” “canonized” by the counterfeit church of conciliarism, quite possibly including that of the soon-to-be “Blessed” “Pope John Paul the Great.” This “feast” will not be an “optional memorial,” to use the parlance of the Novus Ordo rubrics. If actually “beatified” by the conciliar church, as seems might happen sometime later this year, Karol Wojtyla’s “feast day” may be ranked as a “feast,” which is a rank higher than that of a mandatory “memorial” in the new liturgical order of things in the conciliar world. This would be a bitter pill for at least some priests and presbyters in the Motu world to swallow. Swallow it they will, however, just as they swallow the continued offenses given to God by Ratzinger/Benedict as he esteems the symbols of false religions and praises their places of worship as “sacred.” Swallow it they will.

We pray to Our Lady in this Easter Octave of rejoicing. 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, especially as we spend time in prayer before her Divine Son’s Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament.

Alleluia! Christ the King is Risen as He said! Alleluia!

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!

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

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

April 30, 2010

Unimaginable Deceit And Duplicity

by Thomas A. Droleskey

This article will contain much material from a previous articles about the Legionaries of Christ. I am doing this because very few people can recall the details of past articles and because there is no need for me to try to phrase anew that which I have written in the past. I do a lot of such writing in my articles on the Social Reign of Christ the King as the subject is near and dear to my heart and it is relatively (stress on relatively) effortless to write on this subject repeatedly. Articles that recount factual occurrences do not have to be rewritten repeatedly. It is only necessary, as I see it, to refresh the readers’ memories, which is what I am attempting to do in this article.

The Legionaries of Christ have practiced such an unimaginable degree of deceit and duplicity throughout its existence that is truly hard to fathom how so many Catholics resisted the truth of this matter for so very long. I have known about this deceit and duplicity from the middle-1980s, speaking out it rather openly in the 1990s, something that did not make me too popular with some of my fellow “conservative” Catholics at the time. Indeed, I was hated by a lot of people for a lot of different reasons long before I came to accept the canonical doctrine of the Catholic Church that those who defect from even one article of the Faith expel themselves from her maternal bosom and cannot hold ecclesiastical office within her ranks legitimately.

One of the reasons that many Catholics and others held me in great disdain was that I was considered to be a “bishop basher” in the 1990s because I wrote for The Wanderer and wrote articles that bashed men who I now recognize to be officials in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, not the Catholic Church. Many doors were slammed shut in my face as a result of my being a “bishop basher” who wrote article after article detailing the apostasies and sacrileges and blasphemies of one conciliar “bishop” after another without realizing that those “bishops” were merely the field agents, if you will, of the conciliar revolution that had the full support of a man whose revolutionary proclivities I refused to recognize and accept as such, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, until the middle to the latter part of the 1990s. .

My association with The Wanderer, while it provided me with a certain degree of name recognition and served as my entree into national-level political campaigning, closed a lot of doors in the 1990s. Positions at “conservative” Catholic colleges were out of the question. And Deacon Bill Steltemeier, the Chairman of the Eternal Word Television Network, told me in early-1994, the day after I had interviewed Mother Angelica for The Wanderer, that I could not write for The Wanderer if I accepted his spur-of-the-moment job offer to answer mail for the network and to do some teaching for their seminarians. That was a non-starter for me as I believed that it was important to provide a permanent record of the problems facing ordinary Catholics in their local dioceses. Gee, I could have been, quite possibly, an on-air personality at EWTN if only I kept my mouth shut about the “bad ‘bishops’.” (A reader wrote to me after the initial posting of this article to inform me that he had been hired earlier this decade to answer the mail at EWTN, only to be fired later because of his traditionalism.)

The irony here is that Mother Angelica herself became a “bishop basher” in 1997 when she criticized Roger “Cardinal” Mahony’s “pastoral letter” on the liturgy, Gather Faithfully Together, September 4, 1997, which called for the “de-Europeanization” of the liturgy. Mother Angelica came in for fierce criticism from Mahony, who was backed up by his revolutionary pals in the conciliar Vatican. Mahony went on to implement the apostate, sacrilegious “vision” he expressed in Gather Faithfully Together in the $200 million dollar monstrosity alongside the Hollywood Freeway, US-101, that he dares to call Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels. Two articles of mine, both written when I was a sedeplenist, “The Pope’s Cathedral” and “The New Puritans,” dealt with the Taj Mahony.

This is part of what I wrote in “The Pope’s Cathedral” in 2002, an article that contains, most unfortunately, a full-throated “resist and recognize” approach to the situation of apostasy and betrayal that we face today:

“The Pope’s cathedral? Why is Dr. Droleskey writing about the Cathedral of Saint John Lateran, which serves as the Pope’s cathedral in his capacity as Bishop of Rome?” Good question, except for the fact that this article is not about the Cathedral of Saint John Lateran. It is about the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels in Los Angeles.

“Well, Dr. Droleskey, what does the Pope have to with the cathedral planned by the Archbishop of Los Angeles, Roger Cardinal Mahony?” Obviously, very little in a direct sense, that is. However, the Vatican did not try to stop the monstrosity in Los Angeles from being built according to the design submitted by Spanish architect Jose Raphael Moneo. The Pope did send a representative there to be present at the Mass in which the cathedral was dedicated on September 3, 2002 (which featured liturgical dance around the obscenity of the table that serves as an “altar” in the middle of the cathedral, naturally). Not a word of criticism has been leveled about the cathedral from a single Vatican official, including the Pope. Thus, it is not too much of a stretch to say that the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels is the Pope’s cathedral. After all, what he must approve of that which he does not explicitly disapprove, right?. . . .

The Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels in Los Angeles, California, is either good or bad. It is quite bad. It is ugly. The architecture of a Catholic Church is supposed to reflect that which is beautiful, that which uplifts the soul to God, that which provides a dignified home to the Blessed Sacrament and for the offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. As Pope Pius XII noted in Mediator Dei in 1947, the church recognizes that there are a broad variety of styles that can convey this beauty and dignity. However, the new religion engendered by Vatican II and the Novus Ordo has produced novel designs of new Catholic churches and the “renovations” of existing churches to reflect the horizontal and to deliberately de-emphasize the vertical in our relationship to the Blessed Trinity and how the Mass is offered. An ugly, demeaning ambiance detracts from a belief in the Real Presence and in a belief in the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice for sins.

Michael Rose, who is not a traditionalist, has explained in his book, Ugly as Sin, how the new Catholic churches and wreckovated older churches are ugly, not conveying any sense of beauty, which has a most objective dimension to it. However, he does not seem to understand that this ugliness is the direct result of changes in the church’s theological language, outright contradictions of doctrine (especially as it relates to the necessity of winning coverts to the Catholic Church), and the very nature of the new Mass, which reflects the spirit of the world, not the legacy of Catholic tradition.

Indeed, the aforementioned Sacrosanctum Concilium presaged the disaster that is the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels by authorizing a devolution of liturgical decision-making to the level of the national episcopal conferences of diocesan liturgical commissions. Coupled with the great latitude that is given a diocesan ordinary to have churches designed or “renovated” according to the dictates of local customs and the “genius of the peoples” found in the General Instruction to the Roman Missal (the subject of my own forthcoming book), all a bishop has to do to justify that which is ugly and actually demeaning both to God and to His Church is to say that a particular design reflects the relative circumstances and tastes of a particular people and the time in which they live. Obviously, this vitiates entirely the sense of the transcendent that is meant to be captured until the end of time in a Catholic Church. The Cathedral of Notre Dame in Chartres does this magnificently, as do, of course, the four major basilicas in Rome. Postconciliar churches, built according to the specifications of revolutionaries intent on building churches in their own warped images, actually damage the Faith.

Certain “conservatives” within the counterfeit church of conciliarism, some of whom still make a very handsome living defending and propagating the apostasies and blasphemies and sacrileges of concilairism, considered anything that impugned the “pope” or the “bishops” as material that had to be censored. A similar approach is being taken today by some traditionally-minded Catholics as they refuse to report and/or seek to downplay the importance of such offenses given to God by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI as personally esteeming the symbols of false religions and calling places of false worship as “sacred,” little things like that, you see. The belief of the “conservative” apologists of concilairism, joined now by those refusing to defend the honor and glory and majesty of God as He is so offended and blasphemed by Ratzinger/Benedict, is that silence about that which is palpably un-Catholic is necessary in order to “achieve” various goals.

For those in either the “conservative” or the “resist and recognize” camps, however,  one must be deaf, dumb, and blind to ignore the honor and glory and majesty of God when the man they “recognize” as the “pope” calls places of devil worship to be “sacred.” Yet it is that most of those attached to the conciliar structures remain absolutely silent in the face of such blasphemies, thus communicating to those who look to them for “guidance” on the state of the Church that God is as sanguine about them as they are, something that is most patently false and offensive to God in and of itself.

Pope Leo the Great made it abundantly clear that those who are silent about blasphemies are themselves guilty of that which they refuse to condemn:

But it is vain for them to adopt the name of catholic, as they do not oppose these blasphemies: they must believe them, if they can listen so patiently to such words. (Pope Saint Leo the Great, Epistle XIV, To Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica, St. Leo the Great | Letters 1-59 )

Care to disagree? Does the true God of Divine Revelation believe that a mosque is a “sacred” place? Does the true God of Divine Revelation believe that a mosque is one of the “jewels” that stand out on the face of the earth? Does the true God of Divine Revelation believe that a synagogue is a valid place of worship today? Does the true God of Divine Revelation that Mount Hiei in Japan, upon which the Tendei sect of Buddhist worship their devils is “sacred.” Does God reject the “ecumenism of the return”? Does He endorse the separation of Church and State that was called a thesis “absolutely false” by Pope Saint Pius X? Conciliarists must either pretend that the answers to these questions are true or that God is utterly indifferent to them, something that is a patent falsehood in and of itself.

Two of the conciliar organizations that have been in the vanguard of urging their members and supporters to remain quiet in the face of offenses to the honor and majesty and glory of God and the Deposit of Faith that He has entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church are Opus Dei (see Not The Work of God) and the Legionaries of Christ, which I have long nicknamed the “Legionaries of Cash” for their propensity to raise vast amounts of money from wealthy “conservative” Catholics. I noted this phenomenon in an article published in 2001 in the printed pages of the old Christ or Chaos journal, “For the Permanent Record:”

There are many Catholics who do not want to face up to the true state of affairs in the Church. Indeed, there several organizations (Opus Dei, Legionaries of Christ) which tell their adherents quite specifically not to concern themselves with the state of the Church, believing that to do so would be to detract attention from their own interior lives of prayer. Priests and numeraries of Opus Dei – and the priests of the Legionaries of Christ, along with the lay people who direct the Legion’s Regnum Christi movement – discourage their members or cooperators from reading The Wanderer. To do so might be to endanger their faith, it is alleged. Furthermore, there is to be no criticism of bishops whatsoever, no matter what scandal is given by a Successor to the Apostles, no matter what brand of liturgical irreverence and/or doctrinal heresy might be promoted by a particular diocesan ordinary.

The plain fact of the matter that those who preach this sort of quietism are distorting the true history of Holy Mother Church. If the approach taken by Opus Dei and the Legionaries of Christ (among others) had been the tradition of the Church, then the priests and lay people who opposed the Arian heresy would have been advised to keep their mouths shut when the local bishop promoted the Arian creed. Saints Basil and Athanasius would have been condemned as divisive troublemakers who were seeking to undermine the authority of bishops outside of their own territorial jurisdictions. Catholics who resisted other heresies at the local level at other points in the Church’s history would have been similarly told to be silent and to simply attend to their own interior lives. Saint Catherine of Siena might have been instructed not to have sought to implore Pope Gregory XI to return to Rome from Avignon. And Catholics in the United States, who opposed the Americanist tendencies of some diocesan bishops in the nineteenth century, might have been told to mind their own business.

Although “For The Permanent Record” did not appear in The Wanderer, which published my last article, a tribute to the late Father John A. Hardon, S.J., on January 4, 2001, an official from the Legionaries of Christ telephoned the newspaper’s publisher-editor to complain about it. The past eight years have demonstrated, however, that the Legionaries of Christ, in addition to being quiet about the apostasies of conciliarism and the conciliar “popes” and the outrages, both “approved’ and “unapproved,” sponsored by the conciliar “bishops,” had been quiet until last year, 2009, about their own founder, the late Father Marcel Maciel Degollado, who did indeed, in addition to cases of assaulting his own priests, father up to six children. Anyone who criticized the “founder” in the past was lambasted in very harsh terms by their vast propaganda machine, which includes, among other organs, Zenit and the National Catholic Register. Indeed, anyone who criticized the “charism” of the Legionaries of Cash and Cover-Up has been lambasted in the most harsh terms imaginable over the years. I know. I was one of them who felt the sting of various Legionary apologists over the years.

The Legionaries of Christ, which has received an “apostolic visitation” from conciliar officials to make things look good to those who have been abused and deceived by its leaders of the past few decades, has been awash in a culture of financial and moral deceit and cover-up that mirrors its embrace of the doctrinal and liturgical deceits of concilairism itself.

Consider the story written by an expert, Jason Berry, on the deceit and duplicity practiced by the Legionaries of Christ, that appeared recently in the National Catholic Reporter:

The Vatican office with the greatest potential to derail Maciel’s career before 2001 — the year that Ratzinger persuaded John Paul to consolidate authority of abuse investigations in his office – was the Congregation for Religious, which oversaw religious orders such as the Dominicans, Franciscans and Legionaries, among many others.

According to two former Legionaries who spent years in Rome, Maciel paid for the renovation of the residence in Rome for the Argentine cardinal who was prefect of religious from 1976 to 1983, the late Eduardo Francisco Pironio. “That’s a pretty big resource,” explains one priest, who said the Legion’s work on the residence was expensive, and widely known at upper levels of the order. “Pironio got his arm twisted to sign the Legion constitution.”

The Legion constitution included the highly controversial Private Vows, by which each Legionary swore never to speak ill of Maciel, or the superiors, and to report to them anyone who uttered criticism. The vows basically rewarded spying as an expression of faith, and cemented the Legionaries’ lockstep obedience to the founder. The vows were Maciel’s way of deflecting scrutiny as a pedophile. But cardinals on the consultors’ board at Congregation for Religious balked on granting approval.

“Therefore, Maciel went to the pope through Msgr. Dziwisz,” said the priest. “Two weeks later Pironio signed it.”

Dziwisz was John Paul’s closest confidante, a Pole who had a bedroom in the private quarters of the Apostolic Palace. Maciel spent years cultivating Dziwisz’s support. Under Maciel, the Legion steered streams of money to Dziwisz in his function as gatekeeper for the pope’s private Masses in the Apostolic Palace. Attending Mass in the small chapel was a rare privilege for the occasional head of state, like British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his family. “Mass would start at 7 a.m., and there was always someone in attendance: laypeople, or priests, or groups of bishops,” Dziwisz wrote in a 2008 memoir, A Life With Karol: My Forty-Year Friendship With the Man Who Became Pope.

“When the guests came in (there were never more than 50),” Dziwisz wrote, “they often found the pope kneeling in prayer with his eyes closed, in a state of total abandonment, almost of ecstasy, completely unaware of who was entering the chapel. … For the laypeople, it was a great spiritual experience. The Holy Father attached extreme importance to the presence of the lay faithful.”

One of the ex-Legionaries in Rome told NCR that a Mexican family in 1997 gave Dziwisz $50,000 upon attending Mass. “We arranged things like that,” he said of his role as go-between. Did John Paul know about the funds? Only Dziwisz would know. Given the pope’s ascetic lifestyle and accounts of his charitable giving, the funds could have gone to a deserving cause. Dziwisz’s book says nothing of donations and contains no mention of Maciel or the Legion. The priest who arranged for the Mexican family to attend Mass worried, in hindsight, about the frequency with which Legionaries facilitated funds to Dziwisz.

“This happened all the time with Dziwisz,” said a second ex-Legionary, who was informed of the transactions.

Fr. Alvaro Corcuera, who would succeed Maciel as director general in 2004, and one or two other Legionaries “would go up to see Dziwisz on the third floor. They were welcomed. They were known within the household.”

Struggling to give context to the donations, this cleric continued: “You’re saying these laypeople are good and fervent, it’s good for them to meet the pope. The expression is opera carita — ‘We’re making an offering for your works of charity.’ That’s the way it’s done. In fact you don’t know where the money’s going.” He paused. “It’s an elegant way of giving a bribe.”

Recalling those events, he spoke of what made him leave the Legion. “I woke up and asked: Am I giving my life to serve God, or one man who had his problems? It was not worth consecrating myself to Maciel.”

What’s a bribe?

In terms of legal reality, does “an elegant way of giving a bribe” add up to bribery? The money from Maciel was given to heads of congregations in the early 1990s and the newspaper exposure of Maciel did not occur until 1997, and the canon law case in 1998.

Further, such exchanges are not considered bribes in the view of Nicholas Cafardi, a prominent canon lawyer and the dean emeritus of Duquesne University Law School in Pittsburgh. Cafardi, who has done work as a legal consultant for many bishops, responded to a general question about large donations to priests or church officials in the Vatican.

Under church law (canon 1302), a large financial gift to an official in Rome “would qualify as a pious cause,” explains Cafardi. He spoke in broad terms, saying that such funds should be reported to the cardinal-vicar for Rome. An expensive gift, like a car, need not be reported.

“That’s how I read the law. I know of no exceptions. Cardinals do have to report gifts for pious causes. If funds are given for the official’s personal charity, that is not a pious cause and need not be reported.”

Because the cardinals did not respond to interview requests, NCR has been unable to determine whether they reported to Vatican officials the money they allegedly received from the Legion.

“Maciel wanted to buy power,” said the priest who facilitated the Mexican family’s opera carita to Dziwisz. He did not use the word bribery, but in explaining why he left the Legion, morality was at issue. “It got to a breaking point for me [over] a culture of lying [within the order]. The superiors know they’re lying and they know that you know,” he said. “They lie about money, where it comes from, where it goes, how it’s given.” (Money paved way for Maciel’s influence in the Vatican.)

The Legionaries of Cash and Cover-Up certainly knew how to get their way in the conciliar Vatican. How anyone can justify the “canonization” of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II after knowing the extent of the protection he afforded to corrupt “bishops” and priests/presbyters in the conciliar structures is a mystery, I suppose, that will be revealed only on the Last Day. One of the standards by which a person is judged by Our Lord at the moment of his Particular Judgment is how well he fulfilled the duties of his state-in-life, and the state-in-life of one who believes himself to be the Vicar of Christ is to protect the integrity of the Faith (something, of course, that Wojtyla did not do as he promoted one conciliar apostasy after another) and to safeguard the souls of those entrusted to his care. He appointed and protected veritable wolves who used deceit and duplicity as amoral tools to justify their sins against the Sixth, Eighth and Ninth Commandments.

Although the full story about the monetary corruption and the abuse of women and children by Father Marcial Maciel and all the lying that was done to cover up these crimes is now being told, many were the stories told to me in the 1990s by relatives of men who had become conciliar presbyters within the ranks of the Legionaries of Christ.

One person told me that his priest-brother with a serious injury was being denied proper medical care in a foreign country. Others explained the cult-like worship given to Father Marcial Maciel Degollado and his New Age set of “insights” into the interior life, Envoy, that was printed in two spiral bound books and given to members of Legion’s Regnum Christi movement (and which I reviewed privately after being given them by the publisher-editor of The Wanderer in the late-1990s, who had received them from a person who had grown disillusioned with the Legionaries of Christ and Regnum Christi.)

The picture was clear, at least in my mind as early as seventeen years ago, of a cult-like organization that sought to cater to the wealthy in order to raise millions upon millions of dollars in cash, using outright misrepresentation in many instances to do so. One example of this will suffice, provided to me by two sets of Catholics in different parts of the nation who had direct, first-hand experience with this insidious method of operation.

Although the Legionaries of Christ are through defenders of concilairism, its presbyters were not above exploiting the concerns that many Catholics had about the chaos caused by the “Second” Vatican Council and “bad” “bishops” to raise funds for their various projects, including schools that they would run.

Presbyters of the Legionaries would listen attentively when wealthy Catholics in Dallas, Texas, and the Cincinnati, Ohio/northern-Kentucky area complained about the level of heterodoxy extant in allegedly”Catholic” schools that were, as I understand now, in the control of the spiritual robber barons of a counterfeit church that is but an ape of the Catholic Church. These Catholics were particularly upset with the evil of explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments that existed in this conciliar schools. Presbyters of the Legionaries of Christ, seeking to raise mega-millions from these Catholics, listened with a sympathetic year, assuring them that there would be no such instruction in the schools that they intended to build and operate.

When the schools were built and opened, however, their curricula featured the exact same textbooks containing explicit material about matters pertaining to Holy Purity that were used in the conciliar schools. Outraged parents, believing that they had been, in plain terms, lied to by presbyters of the Legionaries of Christ, complained about this assault upon the innocence and purity of their children that they had sought to protect by means of homeschooling once they had removed their children from the conciliar school systems. These parents were told by presbyters of the Legionaries of Christ that there was nothing that they could, that they had to obey the local diocesan “bishops,” who mandated the use of these evil programs in the Legion’s schools. No warning was given to the parents in advance that this would be the case after the money had been raised as the point was to raise money no matter what representations had to be made to do so. (A story, written with a slant against “conservative” Catholics appeared, in the National Catholic Reporter on November 3, 2000, Turmoil in Atlanta. That article provides more information about those situations in Cincinnati and Dallas.)

Deception has not been limited to the protection of the reputation of the nefarious Father Marcial Maciel Degollado and to the raising of funds, something that is such a preoccupation with the Legionaries of Christ that they hired, according a person who had two relatives serving as presbyters in the Legion, a man to work in an office of Wall Street to target wealthy Catholics and then to ingratiate himself to them during the weekday offerings of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service at local churches in conciliar control so as to milk them for their loot. No, the pattern of deception permeates the entirety of the Legionaries of Christ, which is why such media organs as Zenit can “spin” for the false “pontiff” and his apostasies and blasphemies so readily.

To wit, parents of a boy who was enrolled at the one of the Legion’s boarding schools in the 1990s tried to contact their son when he had taken seriously ill with the flu. They were not permitted to speak to their son after he had telephoned them with this news. The mother tried calling the headmaster of the school. She was told that the headmaster was in Mexico and could not be reached.

Unconvinced, the father, who had a brother who was a presbyter in the Legion, told the wife to call the headmaster and to give a phony name as an entree to telling him that she wanted to donate a large sum of money to the school. The headmaster, the priest, who was supposedly in Mexico, took the call immediately, at which point the father got on the phone and said, “Father, why did my wife just have to lie to you to get you to speak with her? We want to know what is happening with our son.”

I related this story privately to a gathering of Catholics on the West Coast when I was asked about whether it was advisable to support the Legionaries of Christ. It was shortly after this that I received a telephone call from a prominent Catholic whose son was also, at least at that time, a conciliar presbyter in the Legion. “You don’t know that this story is true,” the man yelled at me. I told him that the story was indeed true. It’s all true. Every single bit of it is true. Deception is just part of the culture of the Legionaries of Christ, a culture that is unraveling now after decades of calumniating those who dared to bring forth the truth about the sociopathic behavior of Father Marcial Maciel Degollado and the secretive cult that he formed.

A presbyter who had been “ordained” for the Legionaries of Christ put the matter this way in an interview with The New York Times in February of 2009:

In Catholic religious orders, members are taught to identify with the spirituality and values of the founder. That was taken to an extreme in the Legionaries, said the Rev. Stephen Fichter, a priest in New Jersey who left the order after 14 years.

“Father Maciel was this mythical hero who was put on a pedestal and had all the answers,” Father Fichter said. “When you become a Legionarie, you have to read every letter Father Maciel ever wrote, like 15 or 16 volumes. To hear he’s been having this double life on the side, I just don’t see how they’re going to continue.”

Father Fichter, once the chief financial officer for the order, said he informed the Vatican three years ago that every time Father Maciel left Rome, “I always had to give him $10,000 in cash — $5,000 in American dollars and $5,000 in the currency of wherever he was going.”

Father Fichter added: “As Legionaries, we were taught a very strict poverty; if I went out of town and bought a Bic pen and a chocolate bar, I would have to turn in the receipts. And yet for Father Maciel there was never any accounting. It was always cash, never any paper trail. And because he was this incredible hero to us, we never even questioned it for a second.” (Catholic Order Jolted by Reports That Its Founder Led a Double Life)

Jason Berry’s recent two-part story in National Catholic Reporter quite a revealing portrait of how Father Marcial Maciel Degollado remained steeped in his sins until the very end, committing, it appears, the sin of Despair when stating that God could not pardon his sins:

Maciel died in a surreal drama where his life pieces converged with shuddering fall. In late January 2008, he was in a hospital in Miami, according to a Jan. 31, 2010 report by reporters Sota and Vidal of El Mundo. Although the article (available in English on exlcblog.com) is layered in opinion about Maciel’s character, it provides a detailed look at the crisis he created for his followers. In the hospital gathered Alvaro Corcuera, Maciel’s successor as director general; the Legion’s general secretary, Evarista Sada; and numerous other associates. Maciel reportedly refused to make a confession, stirring such concerns that someone summoned an exorcist, though the article does not describe a ritual. The men around Maciel were jarred when two women appeared: Norma the mother, and Normita, 23. At that point, Maciel reportedly said of the Normas: “I want to stay with them.”

The El Mundo article continues:

The Legionary priests, alarmed by Maciel’s attitude, called Rome. [Fr.] Luis Garza knew right away that this was a grave problem. He consulted with the highest authority, Alvaro Corcuera, and then hopped on the first plane to Miami and went directly to the hospital.

[Garza's] indignation could be read on his face. He faced the once-powerful founder and threatened him: “I will give you two hours to come with us or I will call all the press and the whole world will find out who you really are.” And Maciel let his arm be twisted.

After the priests got Maciel to a Legion house in Jacksonville, Fla., he reportedly grew belligerent when Corcuero tried to anoint him, yelling, “I said no!” The article says Maciel refused to make a final confession, and states flatly that he “did not believe in God’s pardon.”

That is an opinion that Maciel’s sordid life might well support, but for which, in fact, we have no proof. In announcing his ascent to heaven, immediately following Maciel’s 2008 death, the Legion high command took propaganda to a level beyond category. (How Fr. Maciel built his empire.)

Wow. That’s not exactly a good way to prepare for one’s Particular Judgment. This is the man who was so exalted by so many? Wow.

As noted earlier in this article, the responsibility for this mess rests squarely on the shoulders of the late Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, who was provided with evidence time and time and time again about the late Father Marcial Maciel Degollado’s moral corruption and his lies and his abuse of money and the cult-like nature of his organization. Wojtyla/John Paul II indemnified Degollado just as he indemnified morally corrupt conciliar “bishops” despite the evidence presented to him about their own personal moral misconduct and/or how they suborned such misconduct in others while bashing the poor sheep who came to them with their concerns thinking that they, the sheep, were going to get a fair hearing from the men they considered to be their “shepherds.” Wojtyla/John Paul II, himself an apostate and a blasphemer who praised one false religion after another, enabled these false “shepherds” as he turned a blind eye and a deaf eye to the evidence presented to him about their misconduct.

Then again, as I have tried to explain so many times on this site (see Respect Those Who Break the First Commandment? Respect Those Who Break the Fifth Commandment), it is relatively easy to indemnify those who continue to persist in their sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments when one is himself a recidivist sinner against the First and Second Commandments. The conciliar “pontiffs” have broken the First and Second Commandments repeatedly. Repeatedly. What’s the big deal about covering up the crimes of a corrupt “religious community” steeped in a culture of deception when one is himself steeped in the deception that God is not offended by esteeming the symbols of false religions and by calling by their places of worship as “sacred” in His very eyes?

Some might point to the “apostolic visitation” of the Legion that is ongoing at this time “sign” that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who as “Cardinal” Ratzinger told a reporter from the American Broadcasting Company that it would be wrong to “dispirit” the faithful by making public the results of the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s investigation into the many allegations made against Father Marcial Maciel Degollado, is a sign that the currently reigning false “pontiff” is going to correct the “abuses” in the Legionaries of Christ. Some even think that the organization might be suppressed.

No such thing will happen. While it is true–and very commendable–that Ratzinger/Benedict moved very quickly in 2005 and 2006 to prosecute Father Marcial Maciel Degollado and to remove him from public view, it is my noninfallible belief that the ultimate report issued about the “visitation” will call for some recommendations for “reform” and continued “monitoring” by the conciliar Vatican, perhaps something along the line of a period of “probation” until the finances and administration of the Legion are reorganized according to the specifications outlined by the conciliar visitators. Perhaps a new “mission statement” will be required, one that makes a formal denunciation of Degollado The Legionaries of Christ simply provide too much money to the conciliar Vatican for much else to be done. And money has been, after all, the bottom line for every disciple of Judas Iscariot since the first Spy Wednesday. Those who can praise false religions and esteem their symbols and their places of devil worship are simply modern-day Judases who will let the money dictate their response to crises that they themselves had worsened by years of refusing to discipline those who were threats to the bodies and the souls of ordinary Catholics.

The culture of deceit and moral corruption created by the late Father Marcial Maciel Degollado is not confined to his Legionaries of Cash and Cover-Up. Not at all. It permeates the entirety of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, which is founded upon the deceptions of Modernism that have seen fit to make short work of the immutability of doctrinal truth and of the reverence due the Most Holy Trinity in what purports to be the Sacred Liturgy. A purported “Mass’ that profanes God so grossly makes it relatively easy to denigrate the horror of personal sin and to praise the “contributions” of men who were menaces to souls throughout their priestly lives.

Each of us is, of course, a sinner. Each of us must live penitentially as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through His Most Blessed Mother’s Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart as we seek to do penance for our sins. It is one thing to sin and to be sorry as we seek the ineffable Mercy of the Divine Redeemer in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance. It is quite another to sin unrepentantly, worse yet to enable recidivist sinners by seeking to browbeat anyone and everyone who attempts to stop the sociopathic behavior of a purportedly “holy founder” of a religious community was a threat to the eternal welfare of souls.

Scandals there will always be. Sometimes, sadly, it is our words and actions that give scandal to others, other directly or indirectly. None of us, however, I am sure, is proud of anything we have done and said that has given scandal to others. I, for one, am ashamed of my own words and deeds that have scandalized others. I despise my sins, each and every single one of them. I pray to live long enough to make reparation for them before I die.

Cognizant of our sins and the gratuitous nature of God’s graces that make it possible for us to receive Absolution for them and to seek to do penance for them as we grow in sanctity, we do not, however, demand that others treat us as saints or that our every thought emanates infallibly from God the Holy Ghost or that we have a “charism” that should be followed a signal example for our fellow Catholics. And we do not praise as saints those who have been responsible responsible for serious sins that have scandalized the faithful and caused grave harm to the Faith in the eyes of millions upon millions of non-Catholics, thus leading them to think ill of the Catholic Church as a result of the misconduct of apostates who belong to a counterfeit church. This includes Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI just as much as Father Marcial Maciel Degollado as they have committed one sin after another, objectively speaking, against the honor and majesty and glory of God and against the Deposit of Faith itself, fearing not to defame the memory of true popes by placing into question their decisions and pronouncements.

Intent on making more and more reparation for our sins and those of the whole world, may we always maintain our own sense of the horror of personal sin as we pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit.

We don’t have the luxury of self-deception in this life. We cannot expect that our own self-deception, which will be exposed on the Last Day at the General Judgment of the Living and the Dead, will be rewarded by eternal life in Heaven if we do not ask Our Lady to strip ourselves of this self-deception once and for all. No amount of cash can cover-up the truth about us then as stand before the Supreme Judge, Christ the King, with our our deeds exposed for all to see as His just Judgment is passed upon us.

If we are honest about ourselves in the Confessional every week, however, and use the shield of Our Lady’s Brown Scapular of Mount Carmel and her weapon of the Most Rosary, we will find Our Lady pleading for us at the moment when details of our lives are laid bare just as she pleads for now in this life to quit our sins and to make reparation for them with every beat of our heats, consecrated as they must be to the Most Sacred Heart of her Divine Son, Christ the King, through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.

Isn’t it time to pray a Rosary now?

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

             January 17, 2011

“Beatifying” Yet Another Conciliar Revolutionary

by Thomas A. Droleskey

What more can one say? Really, what more can one say or write? What was written nine months ago now in “Canonizing” A Man Who Protected Moral Derelicts pretty much summarizes all that needs to be said about the “pontificate” of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II. Only a few additional points need to be covered at this point.

Before making those points, it is useful to provide the text of the “beatification decree” as found on the website of the Vatican Information Service:

VATICAN CITY, 14 JAN 2011 (VIS) – On 1 May, the second Sunday of Easter and Divine Mercy Sunday, Benedict XVI will preside at the rite of beatification for John Paul II in the Vatican.

According to a note released by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, “today 14 January, Benedict XVI, during an audience granted to Cardinal Angelo Amato S.D.B., prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, authorised the dicastery to promulgate the decree of the miracle attributed to the intercession of Venerable Servant of God John Paul II (Karol Wojtyla). This concludes the process which precedes the rite of beatification.

“It is well known that, by pontifical dispensation, his cause began before the end of the five-year period which the current norms stipulate must pass following the death of a Servant of God. This provision was solicited by the great fame of sanctity which Pope John Paul II enjoyed during his life, in his death and after his death. In all other ways, the normal canonical dispositions concerning causes of beatification and canonisation were observed in full.

“Between June 2005 and April 2007 the principal diocesan investigation was held in Rome, accompanied by secondary investigations in various other dioceses, on his life, virtues, fame of sanctity and miracles. The juridical validity of these canonical processes was recognised by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints with a decree of 4 May 2007. In June 2009, having examined the relative ‘Positio’, nine of the dicastery’s theological consultors expressed their positive judgement concerning the heroic nature of the virtues of the Servant of God. The following November, in keeping with the usual procedure, the ‘Positio’ was submitted for the judgement of the cardinals and bishops of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, who gave their approval.

“On 19 December 2009, Benedict XVI authorised the promulgation of the decree on John Paul II’s heroic virtues.

“With a view to the beatification of the Venerable Servant of God, the postulator of the cause invited the Congregation for the Causes of Saints to examine the recovery from Parkinson’s disease of Sr. Marie Simon Pierre Normand, a religious of the ‘Institut des Petites Soeurs des Maternites Catholiques’.

“As is customary, the voluminous acts of the regularly-instituted canonical investigation, along with detailed reports from medical and legal experts, were submitted for scientific examination by the medical consultors of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints on 21 October 2010. The experts of the congregation, having studied the depositions and the entire documentation with their customary scrupulousness, expressed their agreement concerning the scientifically inexplicable nature of the healing. On 14 December the theological consultors, having examined the conclusions reached by the medical experts, undertook a theological evaluation of the case and unanimously recognised the unicity, antecedence and choral nature of the invocation made to Servant of God John Paul II, whose intercession was effective in this prodigious healing.

“Finally, on 11 January 2011 the ordinary session of the cardinals and bishops of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints took place. They expressed their unanimous approval, believing the recovery of Sr. Marie Simon Pierre to be miraculous, having been achieved by God in a scientifically inexplicable manner following the intercession of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, trustingly invoked both by Sr. Simon herself and by many other faithful”. (BENEDICT XVI WILL BEATIFY JOHN PAUL II ON 1 MAY .)

Some in the secular media have focused in the past year 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 VI’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 year 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, 1882, 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.

Take, for example, the following thoroughly un-Catholic “feeling” expressed by the Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus, Dr. Carl Anderson, when asked to comment on the pending “beatification” of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI:

Carl Anderson, head of the Knights of Columbus, one of the world’s largest Catholic fraternal service organizations, noted that John Paul’s beatification process is not a “score card on his administration of the Holy See.”

Rather, he said, it’s a statement about his personal sanctity since beatification is way of holding up Catholics as models for the faithful.

“Pope John Paul’s life is precisely such a model because it was lived beautifully and with love, respect and forgiveness for all,” Anderson told the AP in an e-mail. “We saw this in the way he reached out to the poor, the neglected, those of other faiths, even the man who shot him. He did all of this despite being so personally affected by events of the bloodiest century in history.” (Pope John Paul II to Be Beatified in May.)

Carl Anderson, who coauthored a book about John Paul II’s hideous “theology of the body” that has been dissected so well by Mrs. Randy Engel in several articles in Catholic Family News a year or two ago, has no understanding that one can appear to be personally pious without being holy, without having scaled the heights of sanctity. Long a proponent of the “civilization of love” that is an outgrowth of the philosophy of The Sillon in France that was condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique on August 15, 1910, that was a linchpin of “Pope” John Paul II’s false “pontificate,” Carl Anderson, who was born in the same year I was, 1951, believes that a pope’s administration of the Holy See is irrelevant to his sanctity. Not so, which is why so few of our true popes who have not been martyrs for the Holy Faith have been canonized. The only pope who was canonized after the canonization of Pope Saint Pius V by Pope Clement XI on May 24, 1712, was Pope Saint Pius X, who was, canonized by our last true pope thus far, Pope Pius XII, on May 29, 1954. This occurred fourteen days before the canonization of Saint Dominic Savio on June 12, 1954.  Holy Mother Church, guided by God the Holy Ghost, has been circumspect and judicious concerning the canonization of her true pontiffs.

Furthermore, Carl Anderson and others of those who worship at the altar of the myth, of Giovanni Paolo Segundo il Grande exalt as “virtuous” what the Catholic Church has condemned as heretical, erroneous, blasphemous and sacrilegious, and each of those words apply to the “pontificate” of the man whose only true “greatness” consisted in offending God by the propagation of falsehood and error and committed egregious blasphemies in the form of alleged “papal” extravaganza”Masses” that were planned and orchestrated by one of Annibale Bugnini’s direct acolytes, Archbishop Piero Marini, to be groundbreaking models upon which conciliar “bishops” and “priests” could “inculturate” the Gospel according to the desires of the “Second” Vatican Council and the “magisterium” of the conciliar “popes.” There is no need here to belabor points that have been made repeatedly on this site and elsewhere about these incontestable facts (see, for example, Saint Wojtyla? Not so Fast…).

For the sake of brevity and in light of a few new physical ailments which, although not as serious as those that afflicted me six months ago, have slowed the pace of this work in the past few days, let me summarize a few of the ways in which Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II offended God and thus misled souls from his “election” on Monday,October 16, 1978, to the “official” date of his death, Saturday, April 2, 2005:

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:

4. 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 Ratzinger/Benedict’s “hermeneutic 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 appendices below provide other evidence concerning Karol Wojtyla’s apostate mind, a mind that was formed in his youth nd made him “open” to novelties and innovations that were condemned repeatedly by the authority of the Catholic Church. His view of “church as communion” led him to endorse one “lay movement” after another that was founded upon false premises that either undermined the Faith entirely or put substantial elements of It into question as subjectivism triumphs over objective truth. These movements (Catholic” Charismatic Renewal, Opus Dei, Focolare, Cursillo, the Sant’Egidio Community, the Shalom Catholic Community, the Chemin Neuf Community, the International Community of Faith and Light, Regnum Christi, Communion and Liberation, the Emmanuel Community, the Seguimi Lay Group of Human-Christian Promotion, and, among many, many others, the Neocatechumenal Way) have made the counterfeit church of conciliarism into little more than an ape of the High Church, Low Church paradigm from which some “Anglo-Catholics” have fled, a collection of groups and individuals who are not characterized by “a perfect union and agreement of wills.”

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.

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 the beatification process is not infallibly protected, that no one has to “believe” in the ‘beatification” 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.

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 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 “beatify” him 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.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

                   April 11, 2011

To Be Loved by The Jews

by Thomas A. Droleskey, Ph.D.

At that time, Jesus said to the multitudes of the Jews: “Which of you shall convince Me of sin? If I say the truth to you, why do you not believe Me? He that is of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God.” The Jews therefore answered, and said to Him: Do not we say well, that Thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? Jesus answered: “I have not a devil, but I honor My Father, and you have dishonoured Me. But I seek not My own glory; there is One that seeketh and judgeth. Amen, amen, I say to you, If any man keep My word, he shall not see death for ever.” The Jews therefore said: Now we know that Thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and Thou sayest: If any man keep My word, he shall not taste death for ever. Art Thou greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? and the prophets are dead. Whom dost Thou make Thyself? Jesus answered: “If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing. It is My Father that glorifieth Me, of Whom you say that He is your God. And you have not known Him; but I know Him. And if I shall say that I know Him not, I shall be like to you, a liar. But I do know Him, and do keep his word. Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see My day: he saw it, and was glad.” The Jews therefore said to Him: Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham? Jesus said to them: “Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I AM.” They took up stones therefore to cast at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple. (John: 8: 46-59.)

We are in Passiontide. The passage from the Gospel according to Saint John that was read at Holy Mass yesterday refers to Our Lord’s specific denunciation of the faithless Jews who refused to believe the signs of His Sacred Divinity that He had clearly given to them in the preceding three years of His Public Ministry. No one else had spoken with His authority. He healed the crippled and restored sight to the blind. He raised Jairius’s daughter and His beloved friend Lazarus from the dead. The Jews, though, did not believe in Him. They did not want to humble themselves before Him. They did not want to admit that the very One Who had been prophesied by the Prophets was in their very midst. To admit that their very Messias was in their midst would have meant changing their lives by surrendering their authority to Him, Who they disparaged as the Son of a carpenter from Nazareth, out of which nothing good could possibly come.

Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ explained to them why they did not believe the signs that He had performed. He explained this to them plainly without any degree of equivocation, telling them that they were not of God. So committed were the Pharisees to their own power and their own sense of self-importance that they made made themselves out like unto God. They showed themselves to be completely unwilling to accept even the possibility that the Messias was among them, determining to kill Him when He proclaimed Himself to be Co-Equal with God the Father as He said, “Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I AM.”

The Jews of Our Lord’s time were of the world. They persisted in their unbelief even as Our Lord continued to condemn them for their refusal to open the eyes of their souls to see Who He was and why He had come, namely, to redeem them from their sins. The confrontation between Christ the King and His sworn enemies is recounted all throughout Passion Week, including in the Gospel that is proclaimed on Wednesday of Passion Week, April 13, 2011:

At that time, it was the feast of the Dedication at Jerusalem, and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple, in Solomon’s porch. The Jews therefore came round about Him, and said to Him, How long dost Thou hold our souls in suspense? If Thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, “I speak to you, and you believe not: the works that I do in the name of My Father they give testimony of Me; but you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them life ever­lasting, and they shall not perish forever, and no man shall pluck them out of My hand. That which My Father hath given Me is greater than all, and no one can snatch them out of the hand of My Father. I and the Father are one.” The Jews then took up stones to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have showed you from My Father; for which of those works do you stone Me?” The Jews answered Him. For a good work we stone Thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that Thou, being a man, makest Thyself God. Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, I said, You are gods? If He called them gods to whom the word of God was spoken, and the Scripture can not be broken, do you say of Him, Whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of My Father, believe Me not: but if I do, though you will not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” (John 10: 22-38.)

The Jews were ready to stone Our Lord because He spoke the truth to them, a truth that they did not want to hear. The adherents of the Talmud today are not, at least for the most part, the actual physical descendants of Abraham, being descended from Russian Khazars, although they share the same intense hatred for Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, as did those who were the actual physical descendants of Abraham, a point made clear by Father Louis Campbell, the pastor of Saint Jude Shrine in Stafford, Texas, a few years ago:

Jesus Christ is the Great Prophet foretold by Moses, Whom all nations and peoples must hear and obey, lest they be “destroyed from among the people.” Jesus was not a mere prophet, like Moses, Jeremiah, or Isaiah. In Jesus there resided the prophetic gift in all its fullness. When God speaks, we must listen in fear and trembling (cf. Isaias 66:5).

Though they have rejected the Great Prophet, the Jews still think that the promises made to Abraham are theirs, and that all the lands promised to the ancient Israelites are theirs by right, and will be theirs in fact. This means that no one else who occupies these lands, be they Palestinians, Lebanese, or whatever, have any rights, and that they can be dispossessed of the lands they have occupied for millennia. The ancient Israelites, whose heirs they imagine themselves to be, were commanded by God to exterminate the Philistines, were they not? And who are the descendants of the Philistines? Why, the Palestinians and the Lebanese, of course! Their rights can be ignored with impunity.

Then there are those of the Christian Fundamentalist Right in the Unites States, the Christian Zionists, who support Israeli claims, egged on by such false prophets as Jerry Falwell, Hal Lindsey, Jack Van Impe, and John Hagee. Thousands of evangelical Christians recently arrived from all 50 states in Washington, where they have enormous political influence, for the first annual summit of Christians United for Israel, Hagee being the main organizer.

 

“For the first time in the history of Christianity in America,” Hagee said, “Christians will go to the Hill to support Israel as Christians.” They will urge the US government “not to restrain Israel in any way in the pursuit of Hamas and Hezbollah… We want our Congress to make sure that not one dime of American money goes to support Hamas and Hezbollah or the enemies of Israel.”

Then Hagee declares: “When they see what’s going on in the Middle East, a whole range of enemies arrayed against God’s people, they see God’s word being played out on their television sets. They see Israel triumphing over its enemies as proof that God’s promises remain” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/5193092.stm).

It is as if Jesus Christ never came and established a New Covenant in His Blood, and founded the Holy Catholic Church. God’s promises were fulfilled in Jesus Christ and in those who follow Him. Hagee, and those like him, have an Old Testament theological viewpoint, and have betrayed Jesus Christ, in Whom the Scriptures are fulfilled. Who are God’s people but those who have believed in His word and obey His commands, whether Jews or not? According to St. Paul, “There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither slave nor freeman; there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are the offspring of Abraham, heirs according to promise” (Galatians 3:28,29).

The Jews are children of Abraham according to the flesh only, natural descendants. Some of them, that is. Are those whom we call Jews today the descendants of the Jews who were dispersed among the nations after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D., or even of the ten tribes that were carried off into captivity by the ancient Assyrians in 721 B.C.? On the contrary, most Jews today are the so-called Ashkenazi Jews, descended from the ancient Khazars of Eastern Europe. Despite their prominence in the Jewish community they do not have Jewish blood, but were converted to Judaism in the ninth century. They do not have Jewish blood, and they follow the modern Jewish Talmudic religion. How does that make them “God’s people,” and the “inheritors of the promises“?

On May 14, 1948, on the day in which the British Mandate over Palestine expired, the Jewish People’s Council gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum and declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The new state was recognized that night by the United States, and three days later by the USSR. The Vatican, out of concern for the safety of the Holy Places and the rights of the Palestinians, many of whom are Catholic, did not recognize the modern state of Israel until John Paul II, fervently pro-Jewish, gave it official Vatican recognition on April 20, 1984.

Contrary to what the Jewish Zionists expect, they will not reign as masters of the world from Jerusalem. The servile nations will not come to Mount Zion bearing gifts. Pray for the Jews! They will be all but exterminated except for the remnant who will turn to Jesus Christ and be saved.

And contrary to what the Christian Zionists expect, the Temple will not be rebuilt, and 144,000 Jews will not be converted to reign with Jesus Christ from the Temple in Jerusalem for a thousand years. (Father Louis Campbell, “And I Saw No Temple Therein”.)

So much for the nonsense of Catholic apostates such as Glenn Beck who proclaimed recently that he stands for Israel because it is a “democracy” and, unlike the Mohammedan countries that surround it, it protects women and the “rights” of those who are engaged in unrepentant acts of perversity against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. Never mind the fact that the State of Israel was founded as thousands upon thousands of Palestinian Arabs, many of whom were Christians, were forced out of their own homes and placed into the equivalent of concentration camps that have been termed, most euphemistically, as “refugee camps.” Never mind the fact that the Jews were expelled from Jerusalem in 70 A.D. as a result of their rejection of Our Lord Himself and of the preaching of His Gospel that He entrusted to His Apostles, dispersed as a sign of God’s disfavor with them. (See also Worthy Successors of Herod the Great and Moral Monsters.)

No, Glenn Beck tells us that we are supposed to “stand for Israel” because it is a “democracy” and protects the women and the “rights” of those who are committing the sin of Sodom that cries to Heaven for vengeance. How can anyone, no less a Catholic, take such a naturalist blowhard seriously as a force for “good” in the world? It is not to be “anti-Semitic” to point out that no one but no one in the United States of America is permitted to be successful in the mainstream media without bowing at the altar of the Talmudists. Ah, yes, so many people want to be loved by the Jews of today who are just as fierce in their combat against Christ the King now as were the Jews during Passiontide when He submitted Himself to their unspeakably cruel designs.

Glenn Beck, naturalist buffoon that he is, is far from the most outrageous of public figures who worship at the altar of the Talmudists. Almost every elected official in public life waxes romantically about the “democracy” that is said to be the State of Israel despite its murderous, amoral policies created and implemented by men who consider the lives of non-Jews to be quite expendable in order to retaliated against and thus deter terrorist attacks upon innocent Israelis, each of whom is certainly deserving of being protected from such attacks as they are human beings made in the image and likeness of God, Who wills their conversion to the true Faith before they die. Very few public officials in the United States of America have dared to criticize the massive retaliatory policies of the Israeli Defense Force that have wreaked such death and destruction in Lebanon and the West Bank and Gaza.

The only calculus used by the Zionists of the State of Israel and by their Mohammedan antagonists in such organizations as Hamas and Hezbollah is realpolitik: will a particular military strategy achieve its goals even if civilians must die in the process. Trying to assess military operations in light of the Just War Theory is anathema to men who reject the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, He Who is the Prince of Peace Incarnate? Never! Not for the adherents of the Talmud.. Fueled by their captivity to the devil by means of Original Sin, Mohammedans and adherents of the Talmud are content to target the innocent and condemn them to death to achieve “goals” that lead only to more violence and more killing in the future.

Future generations of Hamas fighters and recruits for Hezbollah will result from the indiscriminate bloodletting unleashed by the moral monsters of Tel Aviv, continuing a cycle of bloodshed that delights the devil no end as the very land in which Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was conceived in His Most Blessed Mother’s Virginal and Immaculate Womb, born in the cradle in the stable in the cave in Bethlehem, raised to adulthood in Nazareth, and preached before His Passion, Death and Resurrection in Jerusalem suffers yet from the consequences of the Abrahamic Jews’ rejection of Him as the Messiah and from the presence of infidels who blaspheme Him as they deny His Sacred Divinity.

Much American blood has been expended needlessly in the prosecution of wars in Iraq to make the Middle East “safe for Israel” even though the Zionist state is perfectly capable of defending itself and despite the fact that the power vacuum created by the United States in Iraq has empowered and emboldened the influence of the Islamic Republic of Iran there. And it has been the influence of Iran that has helped to usher in the bloodletting against Chaldean Rite Catholics in Iraq. Which brave American policy maker who stands so ready to defend everything done by the State of Israel has dared to speak out publicly against the slaughter of Catholics in Iraq that have been made possible by the unjust, immoral American invasion and occupation of that country, an enterprise that was planned mostly by neoconservative Jewish war hawks (see Longer Than World War II)? None. None whatsoever.

What is true of the obsequious cowards in the government of the United States of America who receive vast amounts of campaign contributions from donors who are adherents of the Talmud is, of course, much more true of the apostates who masquerade as officials of the Catholic Church in the counterfeit church of conciliarism. The conciliar “popes” and their “bishops” have been bowing and scraping at the altar of the Talmudists ever since the “pontificate” of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has gone so far as to say the following as regards contemporary Jews:

In its work, the Biblical Commission could not ignore the contemporary context, where the shock of the Shoah has put the whole question under a new light. Two main problems are posed: Can Christians, after all that has happened, still claim in good conscience to be the legitimate heirs of Israel’s Bible? Have they the right to propose a Christian interpretation of this Bible, or should they not instead, respectfully and humbly, renounce any claim that, in the light of what has happened, must look like a usurpation? The second question follows from the first: In its presentation of the Jews and the Jewish people, has not the New Testament itself contributed to creating a hostility towards the Jewish people that provided a support for the ideology of those who wished to destroy Israel? The Commission set about addressing those two questions. It is clear that a Christian rejection of the Old Testament would not only put an end to Christianity itself as indicated above, but, in addition, would prevent the fostering of positive relations between Christians and Jews, precisely because they would lack common ground. In the light of what has happened, what ought to emerge now is a new respect for the Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament. On this subject, the Document says two things. First it declares that “the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one, in continuity with the Jewish Scriptures of the Second Temple period, a reading analogous to the Christian reading, which developed in parallel fashion” (no. 22). It adds that Christians can learn a great deal from a Jewish exegesis practised for more than 2000 years; in return, Christians may hope that Jews can profit from Christian exegetical research (ibid.). I think this analysis will prove useful for the pursuit of Judeo-Christian dialogue, as well as for the interior formation of Christian consciousness. (Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger, Preface to The Jewish People and Their Scriptures in the Christian Bible.)

It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ.  And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Jesus.  Jesus brings a new meaning to these texts – yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance.  There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said.  And there are also good reasons for referring it to him – that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.” (Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger, God and the World, p. 209.)

To the religious leaders present this afternoon, I wish to say that the particular contribution of religions to the quest for peace lies primarily in the wholehearted, united search for God.  Ours is the task of proclaiming and witnessing that the Almighty is present and knowable even when he seems hidden from our sight, that he acts in our world for our good, and that a society’s future is marked with hope when it resonates in harmony with his divine order.  It is God’s dynamic presence that draws hearts together and ensures unity.  In fact, the ultimate foundation of unity among persons lies in the perfect oneness and universality of God, who created man and woman in his image and likeness in order to draw us into his own divine life so that all may be one. (“Pope” Benedict XVI, Courtesy visit to the President of the State of Israel at the presidential palace in Jerusalem, May 11, 2009.)

9. Christians and Jews share to a great extent a common spiritual patrimony, they pray to the same Lord, they have the same roots, and yet they often remain unknown to each other.  It is our duty, in response to God’s call, to strive to keep open the space for dialogue, for reciprocal respect, for growth in friendship, for a common witness in the face of the challenges of our time, which invite us to cooperate for the good of humanity in this world created by God, the Omnipotent and Merciful. (Ratzinger/Benedict at Rome synagogue: ‘May these wounds be healed forever!’ )

The Pharisees of Our Lord’s day would not accept His Sacred Divinity even though He It plainly manifest before their very eyes.

Similarly, there are Pharisees amongst us today who would claim that it is impossible” to recognize apostasy, which is the spirit of Antichrist, represented by the words and deeds of the conciliar “popes,” including the words above that have been written or uttered by “Pope” Benedict XVI, including in his recently released book (see Impressed With His Own Originality and Accepting “Popes” As Unreliable Teachers).

Alas, recognizing apostasy is not a matter of “law.” Truth is clear. It is plain. One does not need advanced degrees in theology to recognize that which is Catholic from that which is not. One cannot dissent from a single iota of the Catholic Faith and remain a member therein. No “declaration” is necessary for one to expel himself from the Church. A canonical declaration of such an expulsion is based on a finding that one has expelled himself from the Faith by violating the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law. The fact of one’s expulsion before any canonical declaration is evident to God and is made manifest to mere mortals by one’s words and deeds.

How else could “conservative” and traditionally-minded Catholics in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism conclude that the likes of Edward Moore Kennedy and Geraldine Anne Ferraro-Zaccaro should have been denied their “Masses of Christian Burial” because of their unrepentant support for chemical and surgical baby-killing until the point of their deaths? To conclude that Catholics pro-aborts in public life have excommunicated themselves is not to “presume” anything about them. It is merely to note a fact that is observable by the use of our sensus Catholicus. Did not Saint Basil himself separate himself from his bishop when he, Saint Basil, was only a lector even though the bishop had not been “declared” outside of the pale of Holy Mother Church?

Similarly, the conciliar “popes” have given us every evidence that they defected from the Catholic Faith long before their apparent “elections” to the Throne of Saint Peter. Their words and deeds of these men during their false “pontificates” are simply public ratifications of their lifelong apostasies concerning the nature of dogmatic truth as they have embraced the “new ecclesiology” and false ecumenism and religious liberty and separation of Church and State and as they have offended the greater honor and glory and majesty of God by publicly esteeming the symbols of false religions and praising their nonexistent ability to “contribute” to the betterment of the world.

No true pope of the Catholic Church has ever sought to appease the ancient enemies of the Catholic Church who deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The conciliar “popes” have done this consistently over the course of the past fifty-two and one-half years now. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI explained that it was “necessary” to change what he believes is the “Church’s” “relationship to the faith of Israel” in light of the crimes committed by agents of the Third Reich of Adolf Hitler during World War II, an apostate assertion that was dealt with last on this site in Saint Vincent Ferrer and Anti-Saint Vincent Ferrers. Ratzinger/Benedict has personally bowed to the public and private pressures brought upon him by adherents of the Talmud to “revise” the Good Friday Prayer of the Jews that is used in the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that was promulgated by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII in 1961 and he was quick to respond to criticism directed at him by Talmudic rabbis for the “lifting” of the “excommunication” that had been imposed on Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of Saint Pius X even though the latter had put into question the exact nature and extent of the crimes of the Third Reich (see Nothing New Under the Conciliar Sun).

The currently reigning “false pontiff” has also given audiences to rabbis who have been concerned about the “beatification” process of Pope Pius XII. This is without precedent in the history of the Catholic Church. It is, however, but a continuation of the soon-to-be beatified Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, who set the stage for Ratzinger/Benedict’s regular visits to Talmudic synagogues, which are, of course, dens of the devil himself.

The teaching of the Catholic Church is clear and consistent when it comes to religious intercourse with adherents of the Talmud and their synagogues:

The spirit of Christ, which dictated the Holy Scriptures, and the spirit which animates and guides the Church of Christ, and teaches her all truth, is the same; and therefore in all ages her conduct on this point has been uniformly the same as what the Holy Scripture teaches. She has constantly forbidden her children to hold any communication, in religious matters, with those who are separated from her communion; and this she has sometimes done under the most severe penalties. In the apostolical canons, which are of very ancient standing, and for the most part handed down from the apostolical age, it is thus decreed: “If any bishop, or priest, or deacon, shall join in prayers with heretics, let him be suspended from Communion”. (Can. 44)

Also, “If any clergyman or laic shall go into the synagogue of the Jews, or the meetings of heretics, to join in prayer with them, let him be deposed, and deprived of communion“. (Can. 63) (Bishop George Hay, (The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion.)

It does not take any act of “presumption” to conclude that the conciliar “popes” have committed acts that have placed themselves outside of the pale of the Catholic Church or that some of these hideous actions have been undertaken by a desire to be loved by the perfidious Jews of today who make war upon the Catholic Faith just as much now as the Jews of Abraham made war upon Our Lord in the days leading up to His Passion and Death and as they made war upon the Apostles thereafter until the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

Thus it is that the same enemies of the Catholic Faith who were given truly unprecedented access to “lobby” their interests in the Vatican since the “pontificate” of John XXIII are aglow over the forthcoming “beatification” termed as the “Pope of the Jews” by a reporter for “Rome Reports,” the aforementioned Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II.

A Talmudic rabbi named Jack Bemporad, who is of the “Reform” branch of Talmudism that supports chemical and surgical baby-killing and perversity and other grave evils in civil society under the cover of the civil law and is the founder of the “Center for Interreligious Understanding,” praised John Paul II in an interview that was aired recently on Rome Reports, stating that he gave a “blessing” of the late “pontiff” in January of 2005 along with three other Talmudic rabbis. Would Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the very One Whose Vicar on earth Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II believed himself to be, have permitted adherents of a false religion that denies His own Sacred Divinity to “bless” Him?

This is not politeness. This is apostasy by way of signifying that rabbis whose religion is from the devil can in some way administer a “blessing” in the Holy Name of the true God of Divine Revelation. This is impossible. This is a public manifestation by the devil of his mockery of what he thinks is the Catholic Church and the papacy. Yet, of course, it is by such actions that the conciliar “popes” have taught Catholics and non-Catholics alike that God is pretty much pleased with all “believers” as long as they are acting in good “conscience,” something that is simply not do. Again, there is no precedent for this within the history of the Catholic Church, which has never bestowed papal knighthoods upon those who are committed to the promotion of one evil after another in civil society as has been done by the conciliar “popes” (see Continuing to Knight Infidels).

The conciliar “popes” have indeed gone to great efforts to be loved by the Jews, who are simply not of God, demonstrating that they, the conciliar “popes” cannot possibly love God as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through His true Church that he founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope. This effort to be liked and respected and understood by the Jews, who are not of God, has been justified in an effort to oppose “secularism,” a contention that is preposterous as it is the very forces of Judeo-Masonry that have resulted in the anti-Incarnational, religiously indifferentist civil state of modernity that has been a vessel out which has flowed every poison of naturalism imaginable.

Pope Pius IX noted this in an epilogue following condemned propositions seventy-nine and eighty in The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864:

79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. — Allocution “Nunquam fore,” Dec. 15, 1856.

80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.- -Allocution “Jamdudum cernimus,” March 18, 1861.

The faith teaches us and human reason demonstrates that a double order of things exists, and that we must therefore distinguish between the two earthly powers, the one of natural origin which provides for secular affairs and the tranquillity of human society, the other of supernatural origin, which presides over the City of God, that is to say the Church of Christ, which has been divinely instituted for the sake of souls and of eternal salvation…. The duties of this twofold power are most wisely ordered in such a way that to God is given what is God’s (Matt. 22:21), and because of God to Caesar what is Caesar’s, who is great because he is smaller than heaven. Certainly the Church has never disobeyed this divine command, the Church which always and everywhere instructs the faithful to show the respect which they should inviolably have for the supreme authority and its secular rights….

Venerable Brethren, you see clearly enough how sad and full of perils is the condition of Catholics in the regions of Europe which We have mentioned. Nor are things any better or circumstances calmer in America, where some regions are so hostile to Catholics that their governments seem to deny by their actions the Catholic faith they claim to profess. In fact, there, for the last few years, a ferocious war on the Church, its institutions and the rights of the Apostolic See has been raging…. Venerable Brothers, it is surprising that in our time such a great war is being waged against the Catholic Church. But anyone who knows the nature, desires and intentions of the sects, whether they be called masonic or bear another name, and compares them with the nature the systems and the vastness of the obstacles by which the Church has been assailed almost everywhere, cannot doubt that the present misfortune must mainly be imputed to the frauds and machinations of these sects. It is from them that the synagogue of Satan, which gathers its troops against the Church of Christ, takes its strength. In the past Our predecessors, vigilant even from the beginning in Israel, had already denounced them to the kings and the nations, and had condemned them time and time again, and even We have not failed in this duty. If those who would have been able to avert such a deadly scourge had only had more faith in the supreme Pastors of the Church! But this scourge, winding through sinuous caverns, . . . deceiving many with astute frauds, finally has arrived at the point where it comes forth impetuously from its hiding places and triumphs as a powerful master. Since the throng of its propagandists has grown enormously, these wicked groups think that they have already become masters of the world and that they have almost reached their pre-established goal. Having sometimes obtained what they desired, and that is power, in several countries, they boldly turn the help of powers and authorities which they have secured to trying to submit the Church of God to the most cruel servitude, to undermine the foundations on which it rests, to contaminate its splendid qualities; and, moreover, to strike it with frequent blows, to shake it, to overthrow it, and, if possible, to make it disappear completely from the earth. Things being thus, Venerable Brothers, make every effort to defend the faithful which are entrusted to you against the insidious contagion of these sects and to save from perdition those who unfortunately have inscribed themselves in such sects. Make known and attack those who, whether suffering from, or planning, deception, are not afraid to affirm that these shady congregations aim only at the profit of society, at progress and mutual benefit. Explain to them often and impress deeply on their souls the Papal constitutions on this subject and teach, them that the masonic associations are anathematized by them not only in Europe but also in America and wherever they may be in the whole world.

Anyone who claims that it is an act of “presumption” to conclude that men who have propagandized in behalf of the very Judeo-Masonic principles condemned by Pope Pius IX in The Syllabus of Errors are not members of the Catholic Church is playing fast and loose with the truth as such men do not have the favor of God whatsoever. To assert otherwise is to make a mockery of God and His Divine Revelation and to reduce the authentic, immutable teaching of the Catholic Church to be a chain of time-conditioned statements that need to be “understood” in light of the “changing” circumstances of the times, a belief that itself has been condemned solemnly by the authority of Holy Mother Church repeatedly. God will not be mocked. Men who propagandize in behalf of the principles of Modernity as they make appeals to a philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned “hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity” cannot be members of the Catholic Church, a sine qua non for holding office with her ranks legitimately.

There have been courageous souls in the past century who have responded to Pope Pius IX’s plea to defend the faith “against the insidious contagion” of the false sects of Judeo-Masonry that have striven with great zeal to convince Catholics that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has no social rights whatsoever and that the best condition of the civil government is one that gives recognition to none while permitting each to flower as it will without hindrance. One of these courageous souls was, of course, the late Father Denis Fahey, who reminded us that Talmudic Judaism means to eradicate all public mention of Christ the King from social discourse, which is why naturalist buffoons such as Glenn Beck are so useful to the adherents of the Talmud as they preach a form of political ecumenism that is absolutely and totally identical to that of the lords of conciliarism who have such a desire to be loved by the Jews.

Father Fahey wrote the following in The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation:

As I was not able to bring out this book when it was originally written, it has been laid aside for years. In the meantime, the need for setting forth the full doctrine of the Kingship of Christ has been forcibly brought home to me by the confusion created in minds owing to the use of the term “Anti-Semitism.” The Hitlerite naturalistic or anti-supernatural régime in Germany gave to the world the odious spectacle of a display of Anti-Semitism, that is, of hatred of the Jewish Nation. Yet all the propaganda about that display of Anti-Semitism should not have made Catholics forget the existence of age-long Jewish Naturalism or Anti-Supernaturalism. Forgetfulness of the disorder of Jewish Naturalistic opposition to Christ the King is keeping Catholics blind to the danger that is arising from the clever extension of the term “Anti-Semitism,” with all its war-connotation in the minds of the unthinking, to include any form of opposition to the Jewish Nation’s naturalistic aims. For the leaders of the Jewish Nation, to stand for the rights of Christ the King is logically to be “anti-Semitic.”

In March, 1917, Pope Benedict XV wrote to the Archbishop of Tours: “In the midst of the present upheavals, it is important to repeat to men that by her divine institution the Catholic Church is the only ark of salvation for the human race . . . . Accordingly, it is more seasonable than ever to teach . . . that the truth which liberates, not only individuals, but societies, is supernatural truth in all its fulness and in all its purity, without attenuation, diminution or compromise: in a word, exactly as Our Lord Jesus Christ delivered it to the world.” These sublime words of the Vicar of Christ have nerved me to do all in my power to set forth the opposition of every form of Naturalism, including Jewish Naturalism, to the supernatural Reign of Christ the King. In addition, for over twenty years I have been offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass every year, on the Feasts of the Resurrection, Corpus Christi, SS. Peter and Paul and the Assumption of Our Blessed Mother, for the acceptance by the Jewish Nation of the Divine Plan for order. Thus I have been striving to follow the example of our Divine Master. Blessed Pius X insists that “though Jesus was kind to those who had gone astray, and to sinners, He did not respect their erroneous convictions, however sincere they appeared to be.”the need of combining firmness in the proclamation of the integral truth with loving charity towards those in error is insisted on, even more emphatically, by Pope Pius XI: “Comprehending and merciful charity towards the erring,” he writes, “and even towards the contemptuous, does not mean and can not mean that you renounce in any way the proclaiming of, the insisting on, and the courageous defence of the truth and its free and unhindered application to the realities about you. The first and obvious duty the priest owes to the world about him is service to the truth, the whole truth, the unmasking and refutation of error in whatever form or disguise it conceals itself.”

A day will come when the Jewish Nation will cease to oppose order and will turn in sorrow and repentance to Him Whom they rejected before Pilate. That will be a glorious triumph for the Immaculate Heart of Our Blessed Mother. Until that day dawns, however, their naturalistic opposition to the True Supernatural Order of the world must be exposed and combated. (Father Denis Fahey, Foreword, The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation.)

This is our duty as Catholics. We are not to support the lords of conciliarism who want to be loved by the Jews, who are of this world and are thus not of God. We are not to support the witting or unwitting dupes of naturalism in the blathering world of talk radio and cable television. We are to stand for the rights of Christ the King openly and unapologetically without fear of the consequences as we pray very fervently for the conversion of those who adhere to the Talmud and as we bear ourselves kindly toward those of their number whose God’s Holy Providence places in our paths, providing them with truly blessed Green Scapulars as we pray “Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death” for each of them by name without fail every day. God wills the good of all men, the ultimate expression of which is the salvation of their immortal souls as members of the Catholic Church. It is not act of true Charity to reaffirm one in a false religion by acts of omission or commission. Indeed, it is a dereliction of our duties as Catholics not to perform the Spiritual Works of Mercy for those who are in the grip of the devil evil though they may not realize it themselves.

Do we desire to be loved by the Jews? No, I am not referring at this point to adherents of the Talmud. Not necessarily. I am referring, however, to the desire of fallen creatures to be loved and respected by the world, which is so much in the grip of the influence of the false, diabolical currents of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry.

Each of us has made our compromises with the spirit of the world, the flesh and the devil. It is hard, humanly speaking, to oppose the world and its false currents all the time as one’s relatives and friends and acquaintances and co-workers (and in today’s crazy world where many Catholics spend most of their waking hours in chat rooms where complete strangers can give one much merit by castigating you without ever having spoken to you beforehand) denounce one for being “too strict” or “unrealistic” in insisting upon firm standards of modesty (see Revolutions Have Consequences, part two) refusing to accept most motion pictures (I will have a comment about Cristiada, which is about the Cristeros of Mexico, upon its release as the trailer for it, which appearing very good, may not tell us the whole story at this point) or the diabolical horror that is “rock music” or the naturalistic farce that is American electoral politics and public policy-making. Fine. Let them say what they want. Who cares? One of the ways by which we can make reparation to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary for our desire to be loved and respected and honored by a world that is in the grip of Judeo-Masonry is to accept the humiliations that come our way with joy and gratitude as coming from the loving hand of God Himself.

Remember, the Pharisees of Our Lord’s day did not act on their own. Our own sins, having transcended time, played a large role in motivating them to act as they did in hating the very One Who had created them and was about to redeem them so that they could be sanctified as members of His Catholic Church. We play the part of those very same Pharisees whenever we turn away from Our Lord and His true Church by means of sinful thoughts, words, desires and deeds. We play the part of the adherents of the Talmud today when we refuse to speak as Catholics in public life and when we plunge headlong in the traps of naturalism posed by the devil as we spend time listening to the babbling inanities of naturalists rather than praying more Rosaries as Our Lady requested of Jacinta and Francisco Marto and Lucia dos Santos ninety-four years ago now.

Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., emphasized this point in his reflection on the Feast of the Seven Dolors of Our Lady in Passion Week:

How many there are, who once drank at the vein of living waters, and afterwards turned away to seek to quench their thirst in the muddy waters of the world, which can only make them thirst the more! Let them tremble at the punishment that came upon the Jews; for, unless they return to the Lord their God, they must fall into those devouring and eternal flames, where even a drop of water is refused. Jesus, the by mouth of His prophet, tells the Jews that the day of affliction shall overtake them; and when, later on, He comes to them Himself, He forewarns them, that the tribulation which is to fall on Jerusalem, in punishment for her deicide, shall be so great that such hath not been from the beginning of the world until now, neither shall be.(2)-{St. Matt. xxiv. 21} But if God so rigorously avenged the Blood of His Son against a city that was so long a place of the habitation of His glory, and against a people that He had preferred to all others, will He spare the sinner who, in spite of the Church’s entreaties, continues obstinate in his evil ways? Jerusalem had filled up the measure of her iniquities; we, also have a measure of sin, beyond which the justice of God will not permit us to go. Let us sin no more: let us fill up that other measure, the measure of good works. Let us pray for those sinners who are to pass these days of grace without being converted; let us pray that this divine Blood, which is to be so generously given to them, but which they are about again to trample upon, may again spare them. (Reflections for the Fifth Friday of Lent)

As Our Lord told Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, it is the sins of Catholics that grieve His Most Sacred Heart as much as did the rejection of His own people during His Passion and Death as we, the members of His Catholic Church, have turned away so frequently from the supernatural helps that He gives us through the loving hands of His Most Blessed Mother, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces:

Consider that it was no less afflicting and sad for Jesus Christ to see the ingratitude of the majority of the faithful, who would have only coldness and indifference for Him in the Sacrament of His love. He saw the little esteem, nay, even the contempt with which they would treat this greatest proof of His love. He saw that no matter what He might do to be loved by the faithful, even dwelling always amongst them in the Blessed Eucharist, neither this excess of His love, nor His benefits, nor His very presence would be capable of making the greater part of them love Him or would prevent them from forgetting Him. he saw that those churches in which He was to be sacramentally present would be left for most of the time without adorers. He saw what little reverence, nay, what disrespect would be shown in His presence. He saw clearly how the greater part of His followers, who spend long hours in vain amusement and useless visits and complete idleness, would rarely find a quarter of an hour to spend before Him in the Blessed Sacrament. He knew how many others would visit Him only under compulsion and without either devotion or reverence. And finally, He saw the very small number who would eagerly visit Him and devoutly adore Him. He saw clearly that the greater number take no more notice of Him than if He were not really present in the Blessed Sacrament or than if He were a person of no consequence.

The harsh treatment which He received from the Jews, Gentiles and heretics was indeed very painful to Him, but they were His open enemies. But could we ever thought it possible that those who recognize His benefits, that those who make profession of being faithful to Him, that His own children should not only be insensible to His benefits and in no way touched with compassion at the sight of the grief caused by such contempt, but that they should treat Him with contempt by their irreverences and sacrileges? Our Saviour might well say: “If pagans and Turks and infidels had treated Me so, I might have endured it.” “for if my enemy had reviled me, I would verily have borne it”. (Ps. 54:13), but that Christians, Catholics whom I have not only redeemed, but have fed and nourished with my Body and Blood, should have nothing but contempt for Me, that they should treat Me with ingratitude, is too much. “But thou a man of one mind, my guide and my familiar: who didst take sweetmeats together with me! (Ps. 54: 14-15)

What must be the sentiments of this most generous and tender Heart of Jesus which has so loved men, and which finds in the hearts of those men only coldness and contempt? “I am become a reproach among my enemies.” (Ps. 30: 12). If after exposing Myself to the contempt and hatred of My enemies in the midst of the outrages which I suffer, I could at least find a large number of faithful friends who would console Me! But it is quite the contrary: “They that saw me without fled from me.” (Ps. 30:12) The greater number, seeing that I have disguised Myself under the feeble appearance of bread in order to have the pleasure of dwelling among men, abandon Me and forget Me as a person who has no place in their hearts, “I am forgotten as one dead from the heart.” (Ps. 30:13)  (Father John Croiset, The Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, republished by TAN Books and Publishers.)

If we are faithful to the revelations of the Most Sacred Heart given by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to such mystics as Saint Gertrude the Great and Saint John Eudes and to Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, then we can be confident that these great saints will intercede for us from Heaven so that we can imitate their complete self-surrender to the Sacred Heart of Jesus as we, who have been given the privilege to live after Our Lord sent His Most Blessed Mother to the Cova da Iria in Fatima, Portugal, to establish devotion her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, attempt to lead all souls, including adherents of the Talmud, to the font of Divine Mercy through the Immaculate Heart of Mary out of which It was formed and to which It is perfected united.

We are loved by the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus. As clients of the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, out which that Heart of all hearts was formed, may it be the singular longing of our own hearts to be content that this all-encompassing, matchless love of Love Incarnate rather than compromise on any point of the Holy Faith at any time for any reason, no less to do so to be loved by the Jews, that is to be part of a world that is in the grip of the devil.

May these words of Pope Leo the Great, whose feast we celebrate today, inspire us to oppose conciliarism’s false accommodation to the spirit of Modernity and to the “goodness” of false religions lest we condemn ourselves by refusing to do so with holy fervor:

But it is vain for them to adopt the name of catholic, as they do not oppose these blasphemies: they must believe them, if they can listen so patiently to such words. (Pope Saint Leo the Great, Epistle XIV, To Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica, St. Leo the Great | Letters 1-59 )

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!

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

April 19, 2011

Perhaps Judas Was the First to Sing “A Kiss is Just a Kiss”

by Thomas A. Droleskey, Ph.D.

You must remember this
A kiss is just a kiss, a sigh is just a sigh.
The fundamental things apply
As time goes by.

  (Lyrics to “As Time Goes By”)

No, the traitor Judas Iscariot did not sing “As Time Goes By,”  which was written by Herman Hepfeld in 1931 and immortalized by actor Dooley Wilson in the motion picture Casablanca eleven years later. He did, though, give the most famous kiss in history as he betrayed his Divine Master, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ for the thirty pieces of silver that he had received from the Pharisees:

Then went one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, to the chief priests, [15] And said to them: What will you give me, and I will deliver him unto you? But they appointed him thirty pieces of silver.. (Matthew 26: 14-15.)

As he was yet speaking, behold a multitude; and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near to Jesus, for to kiss him. [48] And Jesus said to him: Judas, dost thou betray the Son of man with a kiss? (Luke 22: 47-48.)

The kiss of Judas that betrayed Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was the kiss of eternal death for him as he despaired of forgiveness after repenting of what he had done. The passage of time (“as time goes by”) can never undo the act of that kiss, so symbolic of our acts of betrayal of Christ the King in our own daily lives as, if we are honest with ourselves, there have been many times in our own lives when we have played the role of the traitor Judas by pretending to be the friend of the King of Love on Calvary when we have quite instead preferred lives of spiritual lukewarmness and, yes, even Mortal Sin to growing in fervor and grace by cooperating with the Sanctifying Graces that He won for us on the wood of the Holy Cross as He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood to redeem us on Good Friday. Unlike Judas the traitor, though, we attempt to rise up from our sins and to seek out the ineffable mercy of the Chief Priest and Victim of every Mass at the hands and by the ministrations of our true priest who is acting in persona Christi in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance.

Ah, but unrepentant Judases abound in the world, to be found amongst the lords of Modernity in the civil state and amongst the realm of the lords of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Indeed, when you think about it, ladies and gentlemen, Judas Iscariot was truly a man for “modern” times. He was the ultimate naturalist, seeking only earthly treasure and honor when he could have had the possession of the Beatific Vision for all eternity in Heaven if only he sought out the ineffable Mercy of the One Whom He had betrayed with a kiss in the Garden of Gethsemane, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, God-Himself in-the-very Flesh. Encapsulated in the person of Judas Iscariot is the very mentality of “modern man,” content to live as though the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity made Man in His Most Blessed Mother’s Virginal and Immaculate Womb and His Redemptive Act on the wood of the Holy Cross, effected during this very week of weeks, Holy Week itself, are matters of complete indifference to the right ordering of individuals and their nations.

Judas Iscariot was in the company of God Himself for three years. He knew that Jesus of Nazareth was God. He was present when Saint Peter, the Rock upon whom the Catholic Church is built, confessed Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messias:

And Jesus came into the quarters of Cesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?

Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ. (Matthew 16: 13-20.)

Judas Iscariot knew of what Our Lord had proclaimed Himself to be in the presence of the Pharisees who hated Him precisely because they knew Him to be God and they did not want that simple fact to interfere with how they conducted their own lives and the positions that they held among their fellow Jews:

Amen, amen I say to you: If any man keep my word, he shall not see death for ever. The Jews therefore said: Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest: If any man keep my word, he shall not taste death for ever. Art thou greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? and the prophets are dead. Whom dost thou make thyself? Jesus answered: If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father that glorifieth me, of whom you say that he is your God. And you have not known him, but I know him. And if I shall say that I know him not, I shall be like to you, a liar. But I do know him, and do keep his word.

Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day: he saw it, and was glad. The Jews therefore said to him: Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am. They took up stones therefore to cast at him. But Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple. (John 8: 51-59.)

None of this mattered to Judas Iscariot. None of it. Not Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s proclamation of Himself to be God. Not His Proclamation of Himself to be very Bread of Life come down from Heaven. None of this mattered to Judas Iscariot. He had his own naturalistic plans. He was not going to be denied the money that he could have stolen from the ointment that Saint Mary Magdalen had poured on the head and the feet of the Divine Master. He was not going to be associated with a “movement” that would come to be of “no account” according to the standards of the world. He had to be “somebody” in the eyes of others. And in the process of become “somebody” in the eyes of others, of course, he became a “nobody” by annihilating himself as the victim of his own despair.

So it is with the world around us today, is it not? Validly baptized and validly confirmed Catholics eschew the Divine Redeemer, Who becomes present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity under the appearances of bread and wine every time a validly ordained bishop or priest utters the terrible words of Consecration in the Roman Canon (or in the canons of the various Eastern Rite Divine Liturgies), in order to be “somebodies” in the eyes of the world. Fame, fortune, political power, and social prominence must be pursued as though the Incarnation of the Logos, the very Word through Whom all things were made, the very reflection of the Father’s being, did not have any relevance to daily life, as though the events of this very week of weeks, Holy Week, were a matter of complete indifference to the reform of individuals and their societies.

The naturalism of Judas Iscariot is the naturalism of the world-at-large. It is also the betrayal of the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s demonic “reconciliation” with the anti-Incarnational principles of Modernity responsible for the religiously indifferentist state and the popular belief, born of semi-Pelagianism, that human beings can improve the world by means of their own unaided powers and without subordinating themselves at all times to the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has entrusted exclusively to the Catholic Church that He founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope. How many Catholics are going about their business this week without giving the events of our Redemption any thought at all? How many Catholics have been plunged headlong into profane activities throughout the past six weeks of Lent, having absolutely no intention of withdrawing one little bit from the world so as to participate in the liturgies of the Paschal Triduum of the Passion, Death and Resurrection of the Son of God made Man in Our Lady’s Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of God the Holy Ghost at the Annunciation?

The counterfeit church of conciliarism is headed by Judases, men who have betrayed the immutable teaching of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ because they have permitted the devil to enter their minds and hearts, tickling their ears with fables about which Saint Paul warned us in his Second Epistle to Saint Timothy:

I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: [2] Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. [3] For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears:[4] And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. [5] But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober. (2 Tim. 4: 1-5.)

Article after article on this site has attempted to point out the fables that are taught by the Judases of the counterfeit of church, including several in the past two weeks (Vesakh, Not Miller, Time at the Vatican, More Zeal for a False God Than Catholics Have for the True God, Saint Vincent Ferrer and Anti-Saint Vincent Ferrers, Night and Day, Night and Day, To Be Loved by the Jews, As We Continue To Blaspheme Christ the King and His True Church, It’s A Matter of the Faith, Not of Translations, Coloring Everything He Says and Does, part one and Coloring Everything He Says and Does, part two.) As is well known within a relatively small universe of traditionally-minded Catholics, I was a defender of the indefensible for a long time before I became a public critic of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II in the middle-to-late 1990s, something that I documented in Singing the Old Songs on January 24, 2008. Although I have come in at the “eleventh hour,” so to speak, I have tried very hard in the past five years to document the apostasies and blasphemies and sacrileges of the conciliar Judases, knowing that I have much for which to make reparation by refusing to draw the logical conclusions that were to be reached from my criticisms of the conciliar “popes” and their “bishops” and their horrific liturgical service. There is a place for those who come in at the “eleventh hour,” you know.

It as one who loves God as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through His true Church, the Catholic Church, despite his sins that I have attempted to do penance for the errors of the past, especially for the way in which I remained silent about what I knew was the horror of the Assisi I and the scandalous outdoor “papal” extravaganza liturgical services that were represented to the world as true offerings of Holy Mass. It is indeed shameful to be silent when one knows that he should speak out, especially in defense of the greater honor, majesty and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity. Speak out one must, though, if he wants to save his soul.

I did more than remain silent, though. There were some occasions, including one for which I was most correctly upbraided, when I tried to defend the indefensible, to make excuses for some of Wojtyla/John Paul II’s “shortcomings” that were really defections from the Holy Faith Itself. These words of Sacred Scripture applied to my efforts in this regard as I tried to make excuses for the sin of the third conciliar “pope:”

[4] Incline not my heart to evil words; to make excuses in sins. With men that work iniquity: and I will not communicate with the choicest of them.[5] The just shall correct me in mercy, and shall reprove me: but let not the oil of the sinner fatten my head. For my prayer also shall still be against the things with which they are well pleased:  (Psalm 140: 4-5.)

It is as one who did this in my “conservative” and “indulterer” days in the counterfeit church of conciliarism that I write this article of remonstration about just such an effort to make excuses for the sins against the First and Second Commandment committed by the man who will be “beatified” on Low Sunday, May 1, 2011, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II. Here is the effort to which I refer:

The Pope and the Koran

Greetings from Rome as the Eternal City prepares for Holy Week! (I have just begun to send out “tweets” as I speak to different people in Rome and attend different events. If you would like to follow my “tweets” go to http://twitter.com/RobertMoynihan )

The email I sent out earlier this week, about the Vatican’s decision to set the annual Feast Day for Blessed Pope John Paul II as October 22 (he will be beatified May 1) prompted many responses from readers, some enthusiastic, but many highly critical of the late Pope and of the decision to beatify him.

Rather than go through all the praises of Pope John Paul, and all the criticisms of the man, of his actions (or lack of action) as Pope, and of the decision to beatify him, tonight I wanted to say something rather provocative — prompted by a long discussion this evening with a Vatican monsignor, an expert on the Middle East who speaks Hebrew and Arabic fluently, having studied for years in Jerusalem.

Premise: my profound hope is for peace in the Middle East for all who live there.

Corollary: my profound fear is that a way to peace will not be found, or chosen, causing fear and suffering for many, in the region and throughout the world, especially the children, who are innocent — before the long-hoped for “time of peace” finally comes.

One of the great charges against John Paul is that (it is said) he kissed a copy of the Koran on May 14, 1999

John Paul’s critics say this was a profound mistake, indeed, an act of profound infidelity inconceivable for a man chosen to sit on the throne of Peter and to be the faithful Vicar of Christ on earth — since one of the key tenets of the Koran is that Jesus Christ is not the Lord of History and Son of God, but merely a prophet.

The Koran denies this central tenet of Christian faith.

Even more than the assembly in Assisi in 1986, there is a general consensus among critics of Pope John Paul II and of his pontificate, and of Benedict XVI’s decision to beatify John Paul, that this “kiss” was the negative act of John Paul’s life as a Christian, and as a Pope, par excellence.

That is was the worst thing he could have done.

That it revealed that he was in some way unfaithful to Christ.

Like Judas, who betrayed Christ with a kiss…

That John Paul had betrayed Christ with a kiss.

I say no.

And I would like to think that many in the Muslim world would note this.

I say John Paul was not wrong to kiss the Koran (if he did kiss it.)

He was not wrong because the meaning of his kiss was not what his critics think it was.

And what was the meaning of this kiss (which may or may not have been a kiss)?

The meaning was that John Paul, in the context of a world which was barreling toward 9/11, and what has come since 9/11, wished to make a gesture which was against the developing trend: a gesture of respect toward something beyond and beneath  profound theological disagreements.

A gesture which showed that he disagreed with a broad-stroke denigration of Islam which can stir in all believing Christians horrified sentiments of shock and even disgust.

A gesture which showed that he sought peace even with those with whom he was in profound theological disagreement

A gesture of a peace.

Christians can be shocked when they learn of certain Muslim teachings, ranging from the denial of Christ’s divinity to the denial that he actually died on the cross.

So Christian feelings can be stirred up, and inflamed, and Christians and Muslims can be set against one another, if these teachings are emphasized and amplified, and history shows that this has in fact actually taken place. It is not just a hypothesis.

John Paul chose not to inflame, not to stir up.

He could, perhaps, have taken the Koran, given him as a gift, and, with a gesture of shock and horror, tossed it to the ground.

Would he have been a greater soul, a greater saint, a truer Christian, had he done that?

Some Catholics might even argue so!

But I think: no.

Such a gesture would have transformed him from an independent servant of God and agent of God’s peace into an instrument of all those forces which seek conflict, and benefit from it, thoughtless of the cost to the innocent.

I think it is the height of superficiality for anyone to imagine that the Pope of Rome, in receiving the gift of a book regarded as holy by the followers of Islam, and bowing toward it, and seemingly kissing it, was “kissing” those teachings in the book which run contrary to the Catholic faith.

I repeat: if anyone would argue that the Pope was kissing the passages in the book which deny the divinity of Christ, they would be reading his action with the utmost superficiality.

John Paul spent his life in prayer. John Paul saw millions of human beings enslaved and killed. John Paul loved people, individuals, as Christ commanded: “love your neighbor as yourself.”

John Paul did not wish the world to choose sides in a bloody, century-long conflict which might lead to the devastation of huge, fertile regions of the earth, to the loss of limbs and lives of dozens and hundreds and thousands and tens of thousands of soldiers and civilians.

In his act of kissing the Koran (if he did kiss it), the Pope was kissing a hope.

A hope of peace.

A hope of finding a way to peace even when people disagree.

A hope of finding a way to peace even when people disagree in the most profound way, on essential matters — fighting matters… dying matters…

So I believe that John Paul, in this situation, was right to kiss the Koran.

I believe that, far from being an incident which disqualifies him from beatification and canonization, it reveals the true depth of his sanctity, able to go beyond all commonly accepted limits in a search for God’s will, which has always been — against Satan’s wiles — “peace on earth, good will toward men.”

But did John Paul actually kiss the Koran?

To this day, there remains a question mark about what he actually did.

Here is the photo of that moment, from May 14, 1999:

Some say the Pope was merely bowing toward the book, not kissing it.

From this photo, it is hard to tell, and I myself do not know the truth of the matter.

But at least one authoritative witness says he did kiss the book.

In an interview with FIDES News Service (June 1, 1999), Chaldean Catholic Patriarch Raphael I Bidawid said that he was present on the occasion:

“On May 14th I was received by the Pope, together with a delegation composed of the Shi’ite imam of Khadum mosque and the Sunni president of the council of administration of the Iraqi Islamic Bank. There was also a representative of the Iraqi ministry of religion. ….

“At the end of the audience the Pope bowed to the Muslim holy book, the Koran, presented to him by the delegation, and he kissed it as a sign of respect. The photo of that gesture has been shown repeatedly on Iraqi television and it demonstrates that the Pope is not only aware of the suffering of the Iraqi people, he has also great respect for Islam.”

(Here is the full text of that interview: http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=10415)

But was the Iraqi Patriarch really in a position to see that the Pope’s lips actually kissed the book? I do not know.

“But the question is irrelevant,” the Vatican monsignor said to me this evening. “Whether he kissed the book or did not kiss it makes no difference. He bowed toward it. It was a sign of respect. But respect for what? Not for errors. It was respect for a piety toward the ultimate which is presupposed by any religious attitude toward reality. It was a gesture of humility, from a servant of that ultimate and holy reality, which bore witness to the grace that Pope John Paul hoped would touch and transform all those who adhere to Islam, not by force and hatred, but by invitation, by love. And this is why he truly was a great saint, and a great witness to the mysterious will of God for out world, which is not that it become a wasteland, but a garden, not a curse, but a blessing. And for this reason, we were privileged to know him, and will be privileged to call him Blessed.” (Robert Moynihan,  Inside the Vatican, April 15, 2011.)

This is worse than farce. This is a caricature of all that is truly Catholic as a true pope would never put himself in a position to be faced with a decision to appear to venerate in any way the “holy” book of a false religion that is in the grip of the devil and is thus hideous and loathsome in the sight of the true God of Divine Revelation. It is because of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II’s commitment to a false ecumenism that he allowed to be put in a situation where he may have felt compelled to offer a sign of “respect” to the blasphemous Koran that is nothing other than a product of Satan himself, always seek to mock the Catholic Faith and to replace it with the false religions that do his bidding for him, frequently at the point of shedding Catholic blood.

Alas, what could very well have been an “inadvertent” sign of respect for the Koran out of a concern of “offending”: Mohammedans and causing problems for Catholics in Iraq and elsewhere in the Mohammedan world, was, quite after all, nothing when when considers that the false “pontiff” consistently acted contrary to the words of Sacred Scripture as they are understood and taught by the Catholic Church and against her authentic Canon Law by asking leaders of false religions to pray to their devils at Assisi in 1986 and in 2002 and by placing himself voluntarily in positions of equality, if not of inferiority, with the “clergy” of various false religions (see Appendix A below for the full text of Bishop George Hay’s explanation of the Catholic Church’s consistent condemnation of inter-religious “prayer” services), going so far as to administer “joint blessings” with some of them, including the laymen who served as the non-archbishops of Canterbury in the heretical and schismatic Anglican sect.

What else could a man who had become so used to praising the nonexistent ability of false religions to contribute to “peace” and to build the “better” world do than to have to have done with the Koran other than he did in 1999? After all, he praised the voodoo witch doctor in the African country of Benin in 1993 as follows:


“You have a strong attachment to the traditions handed on by your ancestors.


“It is legitimate to be grateful to your forbears who passed on this sense of the sacred, belief in a single God who is good, a sense of celebration, esteem for the moral life and for harmony in society”?
(From the Italian text of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II’s address to leaders of “voodoo” in Cotonou, Benin, February 4, 1993, as found in Mr. John Weiskittel’s Voodoo You Trust?)

This is apostasy. No true pope has ever spoken in such a way of voodoo or given public esteem to a false religion. Feeling compelled to kiss the Koran when presented before him would have come as a natural response to Wojtyla/John Paul II, who would sit as an equal with the grand rabbi of the Talmudists and a Mohammedan imam in Jerusalem on March 25, 2000. The imam, though, had the personal integrity to leave during the ceremony as he recognize that he was giving public credibility to what he considered to be two false religions, something that Wojtyla/John Paul II did consistently throughout his false “pontificate.” The soon-to “beatified” “pontiff” repeatedly committed actions and uttered words that demonstrated that he had defected from the Faith and had zero love for God as He has made Himself clear to us through His Catholic Church, thinking nothing of deconstructing the First and Second Commandments as he offered words of praise on other occasions the likes of the Protestant syncretist, Roger Schutz, at the Taize “Ecumenical” Community in France in October of 1986 and at footnote fifty it Ut Unum Sint, May 25, 1995, to the late Abbe Paul Couturier of the Order of Saint Irenaeus for being the father of a “spiritual ecumenism” that was specifically condemned by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928. Readers of this site know that Abbe Paul Couturier was a disciple of the late pantheist named Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S. J. (see Ever Faithful To His Infidelity.)

This is all without precedent in the history of the Catholic Church.

Where is the precedent for “joint blessings” with the “clergy” of false religions? What true pope has done so in the history of the Catholic Church prior to the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958? That which is blasphemous and apostate of its nature does not become “good” and “true” simply because men claiming to be “popes” since then have done such things repeatedly. Evil acts do not become “good” and “commendable” because they persist over a long period of time. Evil acts do not become less offensive to God because most people in the world, including most Catholics alive today, consider such evil actions to be “good” because the men who committed them were said to be “well-intentioned.”

That last time I looked, Dr. Moynihan, these were the words of the First Commandment given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai and entrusted in the New Dispensation of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ exclusively to the Catholic Church for its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication:

I am the LORD thy God: thou shalt not have strange Gods before me.

The First Commandment, Dr. Moynihan, forbid any kind of public esteem given to any false religion or its idols at any time for any reason. This is just a basic part of the Catholic Faith from which no one may dissent and remain in good standing within the maternal bosom of Holy Church. No one one dies without having publicly abjured and repented of such actions can enter Heaven immediately upon death, no less to be considered as a candidate for beatification and canonization by the Catholic Church.

Thus it is that Dr. Robert Moynihan should look at his own article for an example of rank, abject superficiality and emotionalism as it is nothing other than a exercise in outright positivism and delusional imaginings that have absolutely nothing to do with the greater honor and majesty and glory of God. It is a shameful act of indemnifying a man who promoted the falsehoods of conciliarism (the new ecclesiology, Modernist propositions about the nature of dogmatic truth that have been condemned by the authority of the Catholic Church and stands the principle of no-contradiction on its head, religious liberty, false ecumenism, separation of Church and State) and who appointed men as “bishops” who were, putting aside the falsehoods of conciliarism that each promoted with his own zeal and relentlessness, menaces to the spiritual and bodily well-being of the souls who had been entrusted to their care (see Appendix B below for a list of some of these spiritual and moral criminals).

Even if Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II had not defected from the Catholic Faith, you see, his dereliction of duty with respect the appoint and the protection of moral criminals, some of whom he protected and promoted, would disqualify him from any legitimate Catholic cause for canonization as no amount of alleged personal piety can be heralded when the candidate has been so callously indifferent to the eternal and temporal welfare of the souls ruined to the point of being driven out of any vestige of the Catholic Faith whatsoever by these moral criminals masquerading as Catholic bishops. Such dereliction of duty has nothing to do with personal sanctity as one who is truly holy must fulfill the duties of his state-in-life, and a man who believes himself to be, albeit falsely, the Vicar of Christ on earth has a frightful responsibility to fulfill that cannot be dismissed as irrelevant in any consideration of his qualifications for beatification and canonization (see Celebrating Apostasy and Dereliction of Duty).

Dr. Moynihan’s effort to justify Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II’s show of “respect” for the Koran, believing that it might not have been a “kiss” after all (William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, call your office), makes much reference to what he imagines to have been the false “pontiff’s” desire to maintain “peace” in the Middle East and elsewhere. Gee, that worked so well, huh? What happened on September 11, 2001? An inter-religious prayer service?

Peace?

Peace?

What shallowness and irresponsibility.

“Peace” could have kept by the over thirteen million martyrs of the Catholic Church, put to death at various points by Roman emperors if they had but shown just a small token of respect for the false gods of Rome. Just a small token. Just a little kiss. Just a few grains of incense. That’s all it would have taken. That’s all.

As we know, however, the first thirteen million martyrs of the Catholic Church between the time of Emperor Nero in 67 A.D. and the Edict of Milan issued by Emperor Constantine in the year 313 A.D.

Quite unlike the theoretician and practitioner of false ecumenism who is soon to be “beatified,” our last true pope thus far, Pope Pius XII, reminded Italian lawyers in December 6, 1953, that Catholic blood flowed in Rome as martyrs preferred death to life and a false “peace” rather than to give even the appearance of esteeming a false religion and/or its idols:

Her deportment has not changed in the course of history, nor can it change whenever or wherever, under the most diversified forms, she is confronted with the choice: either incense for idols or blood for Christ. The place where you are now present, Eternal Rome, with the remains of a greatness that was and with the glorious memories of its martyrs, is the most eloquent witness to the answer of the Church. Incense was not burned before the idols, and Christian blood flowed and consecrated the ground. But the temples of the gods lie in the cold devastation of ruins howsoever majestic; while at the tombs of the martyrs the faithful of all nations and all tongues fervently repeat the ancient Creed of the Apostles. (Pope Pius XII, Ci Riesce, December 6, 1953; see Appendix C below for the full context of this quotation from Ci Riesce.)

Father Basil Meramo, who was expelled from the Society of Saint Pius X in 2009 for opposing Bishop Bernard Fellay’s overtures to Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, explained that it was the policy of the Roman emperors to permit the peoples they conquered to retain belief in their own false gods, each of whom would have a representation in the Pantheon. Father Meramo said that this is precisely what the conciliar officials have been doing for over four decades now:

This problem is taking place with the General Superior (of the Society of St. Pius X) (…) who is selling out the Society by allying himself with the Vatican, which has not stepped back in anything. Where does Benedict XVI go? He goes to the Synagogue, he goes to the United Nations, and now he goes to the Society (SSPX) – another concubine in the pantheon of false religions.

This is not admissible. This is a tactic of Rome. I want you to know, dear brethren, that Rome of the Roman Empire was able to dominate the world by means of religious compromises. This is why Rome had a pantheon with all the principal gods of the important peoples who were subjugated by it. Since religious alliances were established and Rome had the same gods of the enemies, then there were no mutual attacks. Rome accepted the same gods of the Greeks in order to dominate the Greeks; Rome adopted the same gods of this or that people in order to dominate them. This was its tactic to govern.

This same tactic continues today in that Rome, which St. Peter – the first Pope of the Church – called Babylon. He was not in the Middle East; he was in Rome and he called it Babylon because it was the Babylon of the religions. He didn’t spare words, because it had an altar to every god. All known religions had their representatives there. (…) A Pope quoted in the Breviary – whose name I don’t remember at this moment – said that at the end [of history] Rome will again have, as in the beginning, all the religions. It will return to its ancient paganism, rejoicing in hosting all religions. It will return to its old religious prostitution. (A Bold Show of Dissatisfaction in the SSPX Ranks;  please read Father Meramo’s remarks in their entirety; the Tradition in Action website has also published and English translation of Father Meramo’s January 26, 2009, “open letter” to Bishop Fellay, Fellay’s Decision to Merge Confronted by Intellectual Priest. These letters have been censored by the Society of Saint Pius X hierarchy.)

Those who have the eyes of the true Faith to recognize and to accept Father Meramo’s profound insights will do so. Others, such as Dr. Robert Moynihan, will attempt to project into the mind of the late Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II what he “meant” to do when showing that sign of “respect” for the Koran. Similar excuses for the sins of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI against the First and Second Commandment in this regard have been made repeatedly throughout the course of a “pontificate” that reached its sixth anniversary yesterday, including when he stepped foot into a mosque in Istanbul, Turkey, on November 30, 2006, and took off his shoes so as to signify that he was in a “holy” place and assumed the Mohammedan prayer position at the behest of Mohammedan host, turning in the direction of Mecca to pray. Defenders of all things Benedict said that the current false “pontiff” just “had” to do this as he wanted to prevent violence in the Middle East although there has been nothing but unremitting violence against Catholics in various parts of that region, including in Iraq and Egypt. Undaunted by the refusal of Mohammedans to take his call for “religious liberty” seriously, Ratzinger/Benedict decided to call for his Assisi III meeting as a means of producing “understanding” (see (Another Year of the Same Conciliar Apostasy, part one, Another Year of the Same Conciliar Apostasy, part two, Another Year of the Same Conciliar Apostasy, part three, Bearing “Fruits” From Hell Itself, part one, Bearing “Fruits” From Hell Itself, part 2, Not Interested in Assisi III, Grand Illusions, More Serendipity From the “Religion of Peace and Celebrating Apostasy and Dereliction of Duty) among religions as a result of the carnage that took place at a Chaldean Rite Catholic church in Iraq on All Saints Day, November 1, 2010. If insanity can be termed as doing the same thing over and over and over again while expecting different results, behold the insanity of the conciliar “popes,” including Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.

Dr. Robert Moynihan’s wild ruminations included his claim that Wojtyla/John Paul wanted to “invite” members of Mohammedanism into the Faith by his sign of “respect” for the blasphemous Koran. Carnac the Magnificent, call your office, please, as it appears that Dr. Moynihan has uncovered “answers” to explain away this reprehensible act on the part of the soon-to-beatified John Paul II that have been kept in Carnac’s hermetically sealed mayonnaise jar on Funk and Wagnall’s front porch.

Admitting that there were times now and again that Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II mentioned Our Lord in passing when speaking to representatives of “other” religions, those that deny His Sacred Divinity, more frequent, however, were the following examples of referring to God in a generic sense while praising adherents of those false religions for “following” God even in those instances when he mentioned the Holy Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ to them:

Dear Friends,

The presence here today of members of the Hindu community gives me great pleasure. In visiting the people of Kenya, I am happy to become acquainted with all those who live in this land and have a part in the life of this nation.

Your own roots are found in the venerable history of Asia, for which I have much respect and esteem. In greeting you I willingly recall the fact that the Second Vatican Council, in its Declaration “Nostra Aetate” manifested the fraternal attitude of the whole Catholic Church to non-Christian religions. In this she showed her task of fostering unity and love among individuals and nations and her commitment to advance fellowship among all human beings. Special reference in the document was made to Hinduism and to the religious values embraced by its followers.

And today the Catholic Church is willingly associated with all her brethren in a dialogue on the mystery of man and the mystery of God.The purpose of life, the nature of good, the path to happiness, the meaning of death and the end of our human journey – all these truths form the object of our common service of man in his many needs, and to the promotion of his full human dignity.

And under the sign of this human dignity and brotherhood I greet you today with sincerity and fraternal love. (To the members of the Hindu community, Nairobi, Kenya, May 7, 1980.)

Under the “sign of this human dignity and brotherhood I greet you today with sincerity and fraternal love”? That’s a little different than the Sign of the Cross. The Catholic Church has nothing to “learn” from members of a false religion about the “mystery of man and the mystery of God.” She has the totality of Divine Revelation and stands in no need of having to enter in a “dialogue on the mystery of man and the mystery of God” with people whom Saint Francis Xavier simply exhorted to convert unconditionally to the true Faith.

Wojtyla/John Paul II’s address to Muslims in Ghana a day later was redolent of “respect” for this false religion, which blasphemes Our Lord by denying His Sacred Divinity and calling him but a mere “prophet,” as he spoke in Judeo-Masonic terms advancing the “great cause of human dignity be advanced through our fraternal solidarity and friendship:”

Dear friends,

At this time I wish to express my respect for the Muslim representatives present here. Through you I send my cordial greetings to the entire Muslim community throughout Ghana.

During my recent visit to Turkey I had the occasion to speak special words of friendship for my Islamic brothers and sisters. My words were the expression of a contact that was fostered by the Second Vatican Council, and that found an important reference in the memorable Message to Africa of Paul VI in 1967. On that occasion he stated: “We also wish to express our esteem for all the followers of Islam living in Africa, who have principles in common with Christianity, which give us glad hope of an effective dialogue. Meanwhile, we express our wish that Muslims and Christians live as neighbours mutual respect will be constantly present in social life also, and common action to promote the acceptance and the defence of man’s fundamental rights”

Yes, mutual respect based on mutual understanding and directed to the joint service of humanity is a great contribution to the world.

Hence today I renew my own sentiments of esteem and those of the whole Catholic Church for the Muslims of Ghana and of all Africa, praying that the Almighty and Merciful God will grant peace and brotherhood to all the members of the human family. And may the harmony of creation and the great cause of human dignity be advanced through our fraternal solidarity and friendship. (To the Muslim Leaders of Ghana, Accra, May 8, 1980.)

No mention of the Most Holy Trinity, Whose very existence was rejected by the violent false prophet named Mohammed, in this address. Just an invitation that the “Almighty and Merciful God will grant peace and brotherhood to all the members of the human family.” Ratzinger/Benedict spoke in similar terms during his pilgrimage in May of 2009 last month to Jordan and Israel, referring to a mosque in Jordan as a “jewel” and the mosque of the Dome of Rock in Jerusalem as “sacred,” utter blasphemies in the sight of the Most Holy Trinity (see “When He Cometh, Shall He Find, Think You, Faith on Earth?”).

Wojtyla/John Paul II referred to his much-mocked “civilization of love” when he gave the following address to Mohammedans in Nigeria in 1982, invoking once again the ‘Almighty and Merciful God” so as not to offend his Mohammedan listeners:

Mister Governor,  all authorities,

This speech, this text, was intended for Muslim religious leaders. I am now addressing the same words to you, who are representing the whole population of Kaduna State, and especially the Muslim population.

Dear friends,

1. I am happy to have this encounter with you, the Muslim religious leaders in Nigeria. I warmly greet you and through you I send my greetings to the many millions of Muslims of this great country. I have come to Nigeria to visit my brothers and sisters of the Catholic Church, but my journey would be incomplete without this meeting. Be assured therefore that I am very pleased at this opportunity to express to you my sentiments of fraternal respect and esteem.

2. All of us, Christians and Muslims, live under the sun of the one merciful God.

We both believe in one God who is the Creator of Man. We acclaim God’s sovereignty and we defend man’s dignity as God’s servant. We adore God and profess total submission to him. Thus, in a true sense, we can call one another brothers and sisters in faith in the one God. And we are grateful for this faith, since without God the life of man would be like the heavens without the sun.

Because of this faith that we have in God, Christianity and Islam have many things in common: the privilege of prayer, the duty of justice accompanied by compassion and almsgiving, and above all a sacred respect for the dignity of man, which is at the foundation of the basic rights of every human being, including the right to life of the unborn child.

We Christians have received from Jesus, our Lord and Master, the fundamental law of love of God and love of neighbour. I know that this law of love has a profound echo in your hearts too, for in your sacred book, together with the invitation to faith, you are exhorted to excel in good works (cf. Sura 5,51).

3. In the world today there are many dangers which threaten the family, that precious nucleus of society wherein each human life begins and develops. I would assure you that Christians have a special concern for the family, for its unity, enrichment and protection. I speak of this concern with you because I am confident that you too are aware of the importance of the values of the family and wish to cooperate with Christians in efforts aimed at strengthening and supporting family life.

Permit me to mention some additional areas where Christians and Muslims can cooperate more.

We can engage in dialogue, in order to understand each other better at both the level of the scholars and in person-to-person relationships, in the family and in places of work and play.

We can promote more honesty and discipline in private and public life, greater courage and wisdom in politics, the elimination of political antagonisms, and the removal of discrimination because of a person’s race, colour, ethnic origin, religion or sex.

Both of us can spearhead the principle and practice of religious freedom, ensuring its application especially in the religious education of children. When the right of each child to worship God is complemented by his or her right to religious education, then all society is enriched and its members are well equipped for life. Religious education takes on increased importance today, since certain elements in society seek to forget and even to destroy the spiritual aspect of man.

4. Why do I speak of these issues with you? Because you are Muslims, and like us Christians, you believe in the one God who is the source of all the rights and values of mankind. Furthermore I am convinced that if we join hands in the name of God we can accomplish much good. We can work together for harmony and national unity, in sincerity and greater mutual confidence. We can collaborate in the promotion of justice, peace and development. It is my earnest hope that our solidarity of brotherhood, under God, will truly enhance the future of Nigeria and all Africa, and add to the good ordering of the world as a universal civilization of love.

May the Almighty and Merciful God turn his face towards you and bless you. May he guide you. May he fill you with his peace and give joy to your hearts. ( To the Muslim religious leaders, Kaduna, Nigeria, February 14, 1982.)

“Thus, in a true sense, we can call one another brothers and sisters in faith in the one God. And we are grateful for this faith, since without God the life of man would be like the heavens without the sun“? Faith in the one God? This is what Pope Leo XIII said was necessary for people to share the same Faith in true God of Revelation, whose contents belong exclusively to the Catholic Church and to no false religion whatsoever:

Agreement and union of minds is the necessary foundation of this perfect concord amongst men, from which concurrence of wills and similarity of action are the natural results. Wherefore, in His divine wisdom, He ordained in His Church Unity of Faith; a virtue which is the first of those bonds which unite man to God, and whence we receive the name of the faithful – “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. iv., 5). That is, as there is one Lord and one baptism, so should all Christians, without exception, have but one faith. And so the Apostle St. Paul not merely begs, but entreats and implores Christians to be all of the same mind, and to avoid difference of opinions: “I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms amongst you, and that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment” (I Cor. i., 10). Such passages certainly need no interpreter; they speak clearly enough for themselves. Besides, all who profess Christianity allow that there can be but one faith. It is of the greatest importance and indeed of absolute necessity, as to which many are deceived, that the nature and character of this unity should be recognized. And, as We have already stated, this is not to be ascertained by conjecture, but by the certain knowledge of what was done; that is by seeking for and ascertaining what kind of unity in faith has been commanded by Jesus Christ. (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II was an apostate. I was too blinded by the times that he sounded like a Catholic to recognize the fact that no one who spoke as he did before non-Catholics could remain a member of the Catholic Church in good standing. I had simply refused to take seriously these words of Pope Leo XIII, contained in the afore-cited Satis Cognitum, Number 9:

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). (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

Although Appendix D will provide other examples of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II’s respect for false religions, other example will suffice before examining two of Wojtyla/John Paul II’s and Ratzinger/Benedict’s addresses at Talmudic synagogues.

Wojtyla/John Paul II’s embrace of the falsehood of “inter-religious” dialogue, of which he was an important “founding father” (see “Connecting” with Betrayal and “Thumbs Up” From a Communist for an Apostate), was on full display in his 1984 journey to the Republic of Korea (South Korea). His address to members of non-Christian religions made reference to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ while expressing his “high esteem” of the “admirable traditions” represented by false religions that deny Our Lord’s Sacred Divinity. He also appeased the Buddhists in attendance by referring to the “Lord Buddha,” something that no true Successor of Saint Peter had ever dared to do before he, an imposter on the Throne of Saint Peter, spoke so blasphemously:

Dear Friends,

In preparing to come to Korea I looked forward with particular expectation to this meeting with you, spiritual leaders in this venerable land.

You are aware that the chief reason for my visit is the responsibility that has been entrusted to me of guiding and confirming the faith of the followers of Jesus Christ who are members of the Catholic Church. But I wanted also to express to you my high esteem of the millennia of precious cultural heritage and admirable traditions of which you are the guardians and living witnesses. Thank you for giving me this opportunity by your presence today.

1. The Catholic Church is endeavouring to engage in friendly dialogue with all the great religions that have guided mankind throughout history. This we shall continue to do, so that our mutual understanding and collaboration may increase, and so that the spiritual and moral values we uphold may continue to offer wisdom and inner strength to the men and women of our time.

In fact, religions today have a more than ever vital role to play in a society in rapid evolution such as Korea. In a sense, just as the individual must find his true self by transcending himself and strive to achieve harmony with the universe and with others, so too must a society, a culture, the community of human beings, seek to foster the spiritual values that are its soul. And this imperative is all the more urgent, the deeper the changes that affect life today.

2. In this regard, the world looks to Korea with particular interest. For the Korean people throughout history have sought, in the great ethical and religious visions of Buddhism and Confucianism, the path to the renewal of self and to the consolidation of the whole people in virtue and in nobility of purpose. The profound reverence for life and nature, the quest for truth and harmony, self-abnegation and compassion, the ceaseless striving to transcend – these are among the noble hallmarks of your spiritual tradition that have led, and will continue to lead, the nation and the people through turbulent times to the haven of peace.

Our diversity in religious and ethical beliefs calls upon all of us to foster genuine fraternal dialogue and to give special consideration to what human beings have in common and to what promotes fellowship among them (Cf. Nostra Aetate, 1). Such concerted effort will certainly create a climate of peace in which justice and compassion can flourish.

3. We Catholics have just celebrated the Jubilee Year of the Redemption. In that period of grace we have endeavoured to live the gift of reconciliation granted us in Christ and have made efforts to reconcile ourselves with God and with our fellow man. Would it not be a good thing indeed, if also between believers of different traditions and between religions themselves a similar meeting of minds and hearts could be realized by our common good will and our duty to serve the human family’s well-being?

When the Catholic Church proclaims Jesus Christ and enters into dialogue with believers of other religions, she does so in order to bear witness to his love for all people of all times – a love that was manifested on the Cross for the reconciliation and salvation of the world. It is in this spirit that the Church seeks to promote deeper fellowship with all peoples and religions.

4. May I address a particular greeting to the members of the Buddhist tradition as they prepare to celebrate the festivity of the Coming of the Lord Buddha? May your rejoicing be complete and your joy fulfilled.

I renew to you my sincere sentiments of esteem and good will. May we all be enlightened for the wise accomplishment of the grave responsibilities that are ours. Thank you. ( To spiritual leaders of non-Christian religious communities, May 6, 1984.)

Yes, the “pope” who was “devoted” to Our Lady’s Psalter, which he dared to change, the “pope” who could sound so Catholic in front of Catholic audiences, the “pope” who spoke sternly to the American “bishops” in 1979 and 1987 and during several of their quinquennial or ad limina apostolorum visits to the Vatican, tripped all over himself when promoting conciliarism’s respect for false religions, each of which is hated by God, as refused to seek with urgency the unconditional conversion of non-Catholics to the true Church. Along with his equally apostate “successor” in the conciliar structures, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Wojtyla/John Paul II gave esteem and respect to “religions” that are from the devil and that can never be the source of personal sanctification or salvation and which are, of course, actual hindrances to the pursuit of the common temporal good as it must be undertaken in light of man’s Last End: the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven.

Yes, it should be noted as a matter of intellectual honesty that Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II was more forthright in at least mentioning the Holy Name of the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, before non-Catholics than has been his successor, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. That the late conciliar “pontiff” gave any esteem at all to false religions, no less spoke about “respecting” different “religious traditions,” speaks of apostate behavior that is simply not consonant with being a member of the Catholic Church in good standing. No true pope of the Catholic Church has ever spoken or act as these conciliar “apostates” have spoken or acted. All protestations to the contrary, Wojtyla/John Paul II and Ratzinger/Benedict have spoken and acted as though they pretty much agree with their mentor Hans Urs von Balthasar’s falsehood of “universal salvation.”

This was no way, Dr. Moynihan, to “invite” non-Catholics into the Church. This was not the way of Saint Francis of Assisi when seeking the conversion of the Mohammedans. And it was not the way of Saint Francis Xavier when seeking the conversion of the pagans in India and Japan.

Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II would be disqualified from “beatification” and “canonization” by the Catholic Church solely on the grounds of his false doctrine and apostate pastoral praxis.

Indeed, perhaps far more damning for the “cause” of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II than his kissing the Koran was his ready willingness to remove the very Sign of our salvation, the Sign of the Cross, at various times and in various places where adherents of the Talmud might have or were in fact offended. The false “pontiff” removed his pectoral cross (remember, he was a true bishop) on April 7, 1994, at the Paul VI Audience Hall as he hosted a concert in honor of the Talmudic victims of the Nazi regime. He did more than that, however: he removed a crucifix from the Paul VI Audience Hall. This has nothing to do with fidelity to the Christ King, who won our salvation for us on the wood of the Holy Cross. That concert was “the first time the Chief Rabbi of Rome was invited to co-officiate at a public function in the Vatican, the first time a Jewish cantor sang at the Vatican, and the first time the Vatican choir sang a Hebrew text in performance” (The Vatican, the Holocaust, and the Jews: 1945-2000, a Talmudic source for this; see also: CHRONICLE – The New York Times and YOM HASHOAH, another Talmudic source for the “concert”).

Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II did this again in 1998 when he requested Carmelite nuns in Poland to remove a large cross that they had erected near the Auschwitz concentration camp and death center where Father Maximilian Kolbe, who hated false ecumenism, was put to death. The false “pontiff” did this because Talmudists were “offended.”

Yes, I contend, Dr. Moynihan, that such acts of rank cowardice are indeed more damning to Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II’s cause than what could have been an inadvertent kiss of the Koran made out of an ecumenical impulse as to remove the very sign of our salvation, the Sign of the Cross, in order to appease the ancient enemies of Christ the King and His Holy Church, is to betray the Divine Redeemer just as much as Judas Iscariot, who, at least, got paid for his betrayal.

Once again, the “cause” of Wojtyla/John Paul II is absurd to begin with as it is being advance by apostates who have defected from the Faith just as much as he did.

As I have noted so many times on this site, those who remain indifferent to or accepting of blasphemies and sacrileges committed against the honor and glory and majesty of God can no longer call themselves Catholics:

But it is vain for them to adopt the name of catholic, as they do not oppose these blasphemies: they must believe them, if they can listen so patiently to such words. (Pope Saint Leo the Great, Epistle XIV, To Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica, St. Leo the Great | Letters 1-59 )

I was indifferent to the blasphemies of Wojtyla/John Paul II for far too long. I was fooled by the fact that the late conciliar “pontiff” spoke as a Catholic to Catholics on many occasions. Shame on me for being so blind.

We know more now, do we not? We see God being offended regularly by these conciliar “popes” who deny the nature of dogmatic truth and believe in other condemned propositions that have been critiqued on this site time and time again. How can we remain attached to men who defy the anathemas of the Catholic Church repeatedly as they offend the Most Holy Trinity so grievously?

The Catholics in Alexandria held steadfast to the true Faith for a long time in the midst of one persecution after another than was waged against them by the Arian bishops and their protectors in the Roman Empire, including Emperor Constantius II and Emperor Julian the Apostate:

It was indeed the hour of darkness, and it seemed as if the powers of evil were let loose upon the world. The Arians, with the Emperor on their side, were carrying everything before them. Nearly all the Bishops who had uphold the Nicene faith were in exile or in prison.

St. Antony, over a hundred years old, was on his deathbed. His monks, crowding around the dying Saint, groaned over the evil days that had befallen the Church.

“Fear not,” replied the old man, “for this power is of the earth and cannot last. As for the sufferings of the Church, was it not so from the beginning, and will it not be so until the end? Did not the Master Himself say, ‘They have persecuted Me, they will persecute you also’? Did not the ‘perils from the fallen brethren’ begin even even in the lifetime of those who had been the companions of Christ? And yet, did not the Master Himself promise that, although she must live in the midst of persecution, He would be with His Church forever and that the gates of Hell should not prevail against her?”

With these words of hope and comfort on his lips, St. Antony passed to his reward, and they laid him in his lonely desert grave. His coat of sheepskin, given by Athanasius long years before, he sent with his dying blessing to the Patriarch, who cherished it as his most precious possession.

The Alexandrians had not given in without a struggle. They had protested openly against the violence of Syrianus, proclaiming throughout the city that Athanasius was their true Patriarch and that they would never acknowledge another. It was of no use; a new reign of terror began in which all who refused to accept the Arian creed were treated as criminals. Men and women were seized and scourged; some were slain. Athanasius was denounced as a “runaway, an evildoer, a cheat and an impostor, deserving of death.” Letters came from the Emperor ordering all the churches in the city to be given up to the Arians and requiring the people to receive without objections the new Patriarch whom he would shortly send them.

As time went on, things grew worse. The churches were invaded; altars, vestments and books were burned and incense thrown on the flames. An ox was sacrificed in the sanctuary; priests, monks and nuns were seized and tortured; the houses of the faithful were broken into and robbed. Bishops were driven into exile and their sees filled by Arians, those who were ready to give the most money being generally chosen. Some of them were even pagans; the people were ready to bear any sufferings rather than hold communion with them. (Mother Frances Alice Monica Forbes, Saint Athanasius, reprinted by TAN Books and Publishers, pp. 64-66.)

Why are we so willing to hold communion with the heretics and blasphemers of today? Why are so willing to hold communion with those who are indifferent to the heretics and blasphemers of today?

Ah, some might retort, Arianism had been condemned by the Fathers of the Council of Nicaea. True enough. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s views of dogmatic truth have been condemned and anathematized solemnly by the [First] Vatican Council and by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, and in The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910, and by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950. His views on Sacred Scripture and against Scholasticism and in favor of the new ecclesiology and false ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue and inter-religious “prayer” and religious liberty and separation of Church and State have been condemned by the authority of the Catholic Church (see Ratzinger’s War Against Catholicism). We just need to ask open our eyes and to see the plain truth that is staring us right in the face.

To this end, of course, we need Our Lady’s help. We honor Our Lady today as the Mediatrix of All Graces. It is through her loving hands that the graces won for us by her Divine Son on the wood of the Holy Cross in obedience to God the Father and that are made present in the Sacraments by the working of God the Holy Ghost flow into our own hearts and souls. She, the great foe of heresy, will help us to recognize the plain truth that the jaws of Hell have indeed prevailed against the Church if true and legitimate Successors of Saint Peter can deny Catholic doctrine openly and publicly as they hold give public expression to private views that expelled them from the Church long before their apparent “election.” And she will help us to have the courage to cleave exclusively only to those true bishops and true priests in the Catholic catacombs who make no concessions to conciliarism or its blaspheming apostates posing as “popes” and “bishops.”

Once again, we need to take heart from the example of Saint Servatus:

Servatus held the bishopric of Tongres (Belgium) at a time when the whole of Christendom had Arian tendencies. The all-powerful emperor, Constantius, was a heretic and supported the heresy; many bishops no longer believed in the divinity of Our Lord; St. Athanasius and St. Hilary, great champions of orthodoxy, were in exile.

The story of the Jewish origins of St. Servatus and his kinship with St. Anne appears legendary. It is not known when he became bishop of Tongres, but by 336, when St. Athanasius spent his exile at Trier, he had already occupied the see. The declaration which he made before the Council of Cologne in 346 informs us both of his meeting with the celebrated Alexandrian doctor and of his own orthodoxy. This is what he says in reference to the bishop of Cologne, deposed on that occasion: “It is not from hearsay that I know what he has been teaching, but from having myself heard it. Our churches are adjacent; many times I have had occasion to contradict him, when he has denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. It has happened in the presence of Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria. .. . I judge that he can no longer be bishop of Christians; and those do not deserve to be considered Christians who remain in communion with him.”

After failing in his efforts to reconcile the usurper, Magnetius, with the Emperor Constantius, Servatus made a pilgrimage to Rome. He returned convinced that Tongres would soon fall to the Huns. Hastily he carried the relics of the church to Maestricht, and there, shortly afterwards, he died. The towns of Tongres remained thereafter for nearly a century without a bishop. (Omer Engelbert, The Lives of the Saints, Barnes and Noble, p. 186.)

Even a now deceased conciliar official conceded in 2005 what many in the “resist and recognize” movement, including those in the Society of Saint Pius X, refuse to concede even in principle as being true, no less that this truth applies in these our days, namely, that the See of Peter is indeed vacant in cases of heresy:

It is true that the canonical doctrine states that the see would be vacant in the case of heresy. … But in regard to all else, I think what is applicable is what judgment regulates human acts. And the act of will, namely a resignation or capacity to govern or not govern, is a human act. (Cardinal Says Pope Could Govern Even If Unable to Speak, Zenit, February 8, 2005; for an explanation of how a long papal vacancy is not excluded by the doctrine of perpetual successors of Saint Peter, please see, Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D., An Objection to Sedevacantism: ‘Perpetual Successors’ to Peter.)

Holy Mother Church, our spotless, immaculate mother on earth, cannot give us even any teaching with “even a light tarnish of error.” We are in the midst of the “operation of error,” awash with apostasy and blasphemy that can never be given us by Holy Mother Church, which is why we must be pray for our true bishops and priests so that they will be remain as faithful as Saint Athanasius and that we will remain steadfast in our knowledge that we have the Faith while the blaspheming apostates have the church buildings and other church properties.

In the midst of the “respect” shown for false religions by the conciliar “pontiffs,” men who never invoke the doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity in their appearances before non-Catholics, who most need to hear exhortations to convert to the true Faith before they die, it is good to once again take note of Pope Leo XIII;s words in Custodi di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892, and to recognize that they condemn the life work of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI:

Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)

Let Dr Robert Moynihan try to refute the work of Father Luigi Villa on the “beatification” of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II without resorting to positivism and emotionalism. Here is the link once again to Father Villa’s work, which should not be viewed by the young or those who do not want to be scandalized or otherwise offended by the graphic images of the terrible sacrileges and gross immodesty that Wojtyla/John Paul II countenanced and never corrected at his liturgical extravaganzas: www.padrepioandchiesaviva.com. Let Dr. Moynihan try to refute this evidence. He will be unable to do so.

No, I bear no animus whatsoever for Dr. Moynihan. None whatsoever. I simply love truth and hate error and falsehood. I, a terrible, miserable sinner, just want to defend the honor and majesty and glory of God as He is blasphemed by the conciliar “popes” by words and deeds and spectacles that are without any precedent in the history of the Catholic Church and are indeed the work of the devil himself as God the Holy Ghost can never contradict Himself.

There were those who remonstrated with me publicly, and rightly so, for my own defense of the indefensible as regards the “papacy” of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II. I remain in their debt. They did me a favor. Their criticism stung at the time, to be sure. However, I knew that I was wrong. I had to reassess what I was doing. It took time. I am, after all, a very, very crooked line. I am dense. It took me a long while to “get it,” doing so only the graces that Our Lord sent to me through the loving hands of His Most Blessed Mother, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, something that does not make me, who is still quite a crooked line in so many uneven and jagged ways, one bit better than anyone else. My prayer, though, is that others, including Dr. Robert Moynihan, who cannot see or accept the truth of the state of apostasy and betrayal that faces us will do so sooner rather than later. That is all.

A friend of mine, one who has not given me permission to use his name as I have been too busy even to write to him to ask for such permission, wrote to me to say that he was going to kiss his Crucifix as many times as possible this week through the end of Good Friday in reparation for the kiss of Judas that Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II gave to the Koran in 1999. This is an excellent suggestion, one that can be used to make reparation for each of acts of blasphemy and sacrilege committed by the conciliar “popes,” including Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s esteeming of the symbols of five false religions, including the Koran, which he would call a month later “that dear, precious book,” at the John Paul Cultural Center in Washington, District of Columbia on Thursday, April 17, 2008, just over three years ago now. The act of reparation proposed by the reader is truly inspired. I encourage each of you to do so yourselves.

Keeping close to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary as we prepare for the celebration of the Paschal Triduum of the Passion, Death and Resurrection of Our Divine Redeemer in but two days from now, may we pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit as we continue to offer up all of our prayers and sufferings and sacrifices to that same Sacred Heart through the Immaculate Heart out of which It was formed and with which It beats as one. May it be our privilege to plant a few seeds for the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary as we attempt to make reparation to Jesus through Mary for our sins and those of the whole world

Isn’t it time to pray a Rosary now?

Our Lady, Mediatrix of All Graces, pray for us.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

Appendix A

Bishop George Hay on Communication with Non-Catholics in Religious Matters

GENERAL LAWS OF GOD, FORBIDDING ALL COMMUNICATION
IN RELIGION WITH THOSE OF A FALSE RELIGION 

By Bishop George Hay (1729-1811)

Q. What are those laws which prohibit this in general?

A. They are principally these following:

(1) The first is grounded upon the light in which all false religions are considered in the Holy Scripture; for there we are assured that they arise from false teachers, who are called seducers of the people, ravenous wolves, false prophets, who speak perverse things: that they are anti-Christs, and enemies of the cross of Christ; that, departing from the true faith of Christ, they give heed to the spirits of error; that their doctrines are the doctrines of devils, speaking lies; that their ways are pernicious, their heresies damnable, and the like. In consequence of which, this general command of avoiding all communication with them in religion is given by the apostle: “Bear not the yoke together with unbelievers; for what participation hath justice with injustice? or what fellowship hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbelievers? or what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For ye are the temple of the living God.” (2 Cor. 6:14)

Now it is the true religion of Jesus Christ, the true doctrine of His gospel, which is justice and light; all false doctrines are injustice and darkness; it is by our holy faith that we belong to Christ, and are temples of the living God; all false religions flow from the father of lies, and make those who embrace them unbelievers; therefore all participation, all fellowship, all communication with false religions, is here expressly forbidden by the Word of God. We have seen above 2 that we are obliged to love the persons of those who are engaged in false religions, to wish them well, and to do them good; but here we are expressly forbidden all communication in their religion — that is, in their false tenets, and worship. Hence the learned and pious English divines who published at Rheims their translation of the New Testament, in their note upon this passage, say: “Generally, here is forbidden conversation and dealing with unbelievers in prayers, or meetings at their schismatical service, or other divine office whatsoever; which the apostle here uttereth in more particular terms, that Christian people may take the better heed of it.”

(2) The next general command to avoid all religious communication with those who are heretics, or have a false religion, is this, — “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, AVOID; knowing that he that is such a one is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.” (Tit. 3:10)

Here we see another general command to avoid all such — that is, to flee from them, to have no communication with them. But in what are we commanded to flee from them? Not as to their persons, or the necessary communications of society; for then, as the same holy apostle says upon a similar occasion, “You must needs go out of the world.” [1] Cor. 5:10) Not as to the offices of Christian charity; for these we are commanded by Christ himself, in the person of the good Samaritan, to give to all mankind, whatever their religion be: therefore, in the most restricted and limited sense which the words can bear, the thing in which we are commanded to avoid them is in all matters of religion; in that in which they themselves are subverted and sin; in things relating to God and His service. In these they err, in these they are subverted, in these they are condemned; therefore in these we must avoid them.

Hence the pious translators of the Rheims New Testament, in their note on this text, say, “Heretics, therefore, must not wonder if we warn all Catholics, by the words of the apostle in this place, to take heed of them, and to shun their preachings, books, and conventicles.”

(3) A third general command on this subject is manifestly included in this zealous injunction of the apostle: “We charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received from us.” (2 Thes. 3:6)

In this passage, all the different sects of false religions are particularly pointed out; for, however they may differ in other respects they generally agree in this, of rejecting apostolical traditions handed down to us by the Church of Christ; all such the apostle here charges us, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to avoid — to withdraw ourselves from them. Now it is evident that the most limited sense in which this command, so warmly laid on us by the apostle, can be taken, is to withdraw ourselves from them in everything relating to religion, — from their sacraments, prayers, preachings, religious meetings, and the like. It is in these things that they “do not walk according to the tradition received from the apostles”. In these things, then, we are here commanded, in the name of Christ Himself, “to withdraw ourselves from them”.

Seeing, therefore, that the Holy Ghost, by the mouth of this holy apostle, has so often, and in such strong terms, forbidden all manner of fellowship in religion with those who are out of His holy Church, let us not be deceived by the specious but vain sophistry of cunning men, who lie in wait to deceive; let us not offend our God, by transgressing these His express commands, by joining in the prayers or going to the meetings of such as are separated from His holy Church, lest He should withdraw His holy grace from US, and as we expose ourselves to the danger, leave us to perish in it.

Let us hear and follow the advice and command of the same holy apostle: “As therefore ye have received Jesus Christ the Lord, walk ye in Him; rooted and built up in Him, and confirmed in the faith; as also ye have learned, abounding in Him in thanksgiving. Beware lest any man impose upon you by philosophy and vain deceit according to the tradition of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not according to Christ.” (Col. 2:6) Wherefore, to all those arguments which may be brought from human, worldly, or interested motives, to induce us to join in or to partake of any religious duty with those of a false religion, though in appearance only, we ought to oppose this one, — “God has expressly forbidden it, therefore no human power can make it lawful.”

PARTICULAR LAWS OF GOD FORBIDDING ALL COMMUNICATION
WITH FALSE RELIGIONS, AND ASSIGNING REASONS FOR IT

Q. What are the particular laws on this subject?

A. In the three general commands above mentioned, God Almighty speaks, by the mouth of His holy apostle, as Lord and Master, and lays His orders upon us absolutely. In what follows, He unites the merciful Savior to the Sovereign; and whilst He no less strictly commands us to avoid all religious communication with those who are separated from His holy Faith and Church, He at the same time condescends to engage our obedience, by showing us the strongest reasons for it.

(1) “Beware of false prophets”, says our blessed Master, “who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves”. (Mat. 7:5) Here Jesus Christ commands His followers to “beware of false prophets” — that is, to flee from them, to be on their guard against them; and He adds this powerful motive, “Lest ye be seduced and ruined by them”; for, whatever appearance of godliness they may put on, though they come to you in the clothing of sheep, yet within they are ravenous wolves, and seek only to slay and to destroy.

To the same purpose He says in another place, “Take heed that no man seduce you; for many will come in My name, saying, I am Christ, and they will seduce many.” (Mat. 24:4) “And many false prophets shall arise and seduce many.” (ver. 2) Here He foretells the cunning of false teachers, and the danger of being seduced by them, and commands us to take care of ourselves, that such be not our fate.

But how shall we escape from them? He afterwards tells us how: do not believe them, have nothing to do with them, have no communication, with them. “Then”, He says, “if any man shall say, to you, Lo, here is Christ, or there, do not believe him. For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive even the elect. Behold. I have told it you beforehand. If therefore, they shall say to you, Behold he is in the desert, go ye not out; behold he is in the closet, believe it not.” (Mat. 24:23)

Can there be a more powerful reason to enforce the observance of His command, or a stronger motive to induce His followers to have no religious communication with such false teachers? Many will be certainly seduced by them; and so will you, if you expose yourself to the danger.

(2) St. Peter, considering the great mercy bestowed upon us by the grace of our vocation to the true faith of Christ, says, that it is our duty to “declare the praises and virtues of Him who hath called us out of darkness into His admirable light”. (1 Pet. 2:9) St. Paul also exhorts us to “give thanks to God the Father, who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light, who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His beloved Son.” (Col. 1:12) Where it is manifest that as the true Faith of Jesus Christ is the only light that conducts to salvation, and that it is only in His Kingdom — that is, in His Church — where that heavenly light is to be found, so all false religions are darkness; and that to be separated from the Kingdom of Christ is to be in darkness as to the great affair of eternity. And indeed what greater or more miserable darkness can a soul be in than to be led away by seducing spirits, and “departing from the faith of Christ, give heed to the doctrine of devils”. (1 Tim. 4:1) St. Paul, deploring the state of such souls, says that they “have their understandings darkened, being alienated from the life of God, through the ignorance: that is in them, because of the blindness of their hearts”. (Eph. 4:18)

On this account the same holy apostle exhorts us in the most pressing manner to take care not to be seduced from the light of our holy Faith by the vain words and seducing speeches of false teachers, by which we would certainly incur the anger of God; and, to prevent so great a misery, He not only exhorts us to walk as children of the light in the practice of all holy virtues, but expressly commands us to avoid all communication in religion with those who walk in the darkness of error. “Let no man deceive you with vain words, for because of these things cometh the anger of God upon the children of unbelief; be ye not, therefore, partakers with them. For ye were theretofore darkness; but now light in the Lord; walk ye as the children of the light,

. . . and have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness”. (Eph. 5:6)

Here, then, we have an express command, not only not to partake with the unfruitful works of darkness — that is, not to join in any false religion, or partake of its rites or sacraments — but also, not to have any fellowship with its professors, not to be present at their meetings or sermons, or any other of their religious offices, lest we be deceived by them, and incur the anger of the Almighty, provoke Him to withdraw His assistance from us, and leave us to ourselves, in punishment of our disobedience.

(3) St. Paul, full of zeal for the good of souls, and solicitous to preserve us from all danger of losing our holy Faith, the groundwork of our salvation, renews the same command in his Epistle to the Romans, by way of entreaty, beseeching us to avoid all such communication with those of a false religion. He also shows us by what sign we should discover them, and points out the source of our danger from them: “Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who cause dissensions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and to avoid them; for they that are such serve not Our Lord Christ, but their own belly, and by pleasing speeches and good words seduce the hearts of the innocent”. (Rom. 16:17)

See here whom we are to avoid — “those that cause dissensions contrary to the ancient doctrine”; all those who, hating, left the true Faith and doctrine which they had learned, and which has been handed down to us from the beginning by the Church of Christ, follow strange doctrines, and make divisions and dissensions in the Christian world. And why are we to avoid them? Because they are not servants of Christ, but slaves to their own belly, whose hearts are placed upon the enjoyments of this world, and who, by “pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent” — that is, do not bring good reasons or solid arguments to seduce people to their evil ways, so as to convince the understanding, for that is impossible; but practice upon their hearts and passions, relaxing the laws of the gospel, granting liberties to the inclinations of flesh and blood, laying aside the sacred rules of mortification of the passions and of self-denial, promising worldly wealth, and ease, and honors, and, by pleasing speeches of this kind, seducing the heart, and engaging people to their ways.

(4) The same argument and command the apostle repeats in his epistle to his beloved disciple Timothy, where he gives a sad picture, indeed, of all false teachers, telling us that they put on an outward show of piety the better to deceive, “having an appearance, indeed, of godliness, but denying the power thereof;” then he immediately gives this command: “Now these avoid: for of this sort are they that creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, who are led away with divers desires”; and adds this sign by which they may be known, that, not having the true Faith of Christ, and being out of His holy Church — the only sure rule for knowing the truth — they are never settled, but are always altering and changing their opinions, “ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth”; because, as he adds, “they resist the truth, being corrupted in their mind, and reprobate concerning the Faith”. (2 Tim. 3:5)

Here it is to be observed that, though the apostle says that silly weak people, and especially women, are most apt to be deceived by such false teachers, yet he gives the command of avoiding all communication with them in their evil ways, to all without exception, even to Timothy himself; for the epistle is directed particularly to him, and to him he says, as well as to all others, “Now these avoid”, though he was a pastor of the church, and fully instructed by the apostle himself in all the truths of religion; because, besides the danger of seduction, which none can escape who voluntarily expose themselves to it, all such communication is evil in itself, and therefore to be avoided by all, and especially by pastors, whose example would be more prejudicial to others.

(5) Lastly, the beloved disciple St. John renews the same command in the strongest terms, and adds another reason, which regards all without exception, and especially those who are best instructed in their duty: “Look to yourselves”, says he, “that ye lose not the things that ye have wrought, but that you may receive a full reward. Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, nor say to him, God speed you: for he that saith to him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works”. (2 John, ver. 8)

Here, then, it is manifest, that all fellowship with those who have not the doctrine of Jesus Christ, which is “a communication in their evil works” — that is, in their false tenets, or worship, or in any act of religion — is strictly forbidden, under pain of losing the “things we have wrought, the reward of our labors, the salvation of our souls”. And if this holy apostle declares that the very saying God speed to such people is a communication with their wicked works, what would he have said of going to their places of worship, of hearing their sermons, joining in their prayers, or the like?

From this passage the learned translators of the Rheims New Testament, in their note, justly observe, “That, in matters of religion, in praying, hearing their sermons, presence at their service, partaking of their sacraments, and all other communicating with them in spiritual things, it is a great and damnable sin to deal with them.” And if this be the case with all in general, how much more with those who are well instructed and better versed in their religion than others? For their doing any of these things must be a much greater crime than in ignorant people, because they know their duty better.

Q. These laws are very clear and strong; but has the Christian church always observed and enforced the observance of them?

A. The spirit of Christ, which dictated the Holy Scriptures, and the spirit which animates and guides the Church of Christ, and teaches her all truth, is the same; and therefore in all ages her conduct on this point has been uniformly the same as what the Holy Scripture teaches. She has constantly forbidden her children to hold any communication, in religious matters, with those who are separated from her communion; and this she has sometimes done under the most severe penalties. In the apostolical canons, which are of very ancient standing, and for the most part handed down from the apostolical age, it is thus decreed: “If any bishop, or priest, or deacon, shall join in prayers with heretics, let him be suspended from Communion”. (Can. 44)

Also, “If any clergyman or laic shall go into the synagogue of the Jews, or the meetings of heretics, to join in prayer with them, let him be deposed, and deprived of communion”. (Can. 63)

So also, in one of her most respected councils, held in the year 398, at which the great St. Augustine was present, she speaks thus: “None must either pray or sing psalms with heretics; and whosoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the Communion of the Church, whether clergyman or laic, let him be excommunicated”. (Coun. Carth. iv. 72 and 73)

The same is her language in all ages; and in this she shows herself to be the true mother, who will not suffer her children to be divided. She knows her heavenly spouse has declared that “no man can serve two masters; we cannot serve God and Mammon;” and therefore she must either have them to be hers entirely, or she cannot acknowledge them as such. She knows His holy apostle has protested that there can be no “participation, no fellowship, no concord, no pact, no agreement between the faithful and the unbeliever;” and therefore she never can allow any of her faithful children to have any religious communication with those of a false religion and corrupted Faith.

 Footnotes:

1. The Sincere Christian pp. 474 -533, James Duffey and Son, Dublin

2. Ibid.  http://www.catholicapologetics.info

April 29, 2011

Enjoy the Party, George, Enjoy the Party

by Thomas A. Droleskey, Ph.D.

The big party in Rome is about to get underway as the currently reigning false “pontiff” prepares to “beatify” his predecessor as the head of the counterfeit church of conciliarism that is but a fraudulent ape of the Catholic Church.

As the long reign of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II was marked by events and decisions that have caused even some “conservative” and traditionally-minded Catholics in the conciliar structures understand are very problematic, to say the very least, in the consideration of a candidate’s cause for beatification and the subsequent canonization, defenders of all things John Paul II have tried to swat away some of the criticism of the former “pontiff’s” “beatification” by writing such incredibly ludicrous “defenses” of his record as to boggle the mind.

An article published on this site ten days ago now, Perhaps Judas Was the First to Sing “A Kiss is Just a Kiss”, responded to feeble, emotionally-laden effort made by the editor of Inside the Vatican, Dr. Robert Moynihan, to justify Wojtyla/John Paul II’s kissing of the Koran in 1999 that was nothing other than an exercise in sheer positivism and delusional mind-reading. There is no need to repeat yet again the points that have been made in other articles on this subject, including in (see “Connecting” with Betrayal,   “Canonizing” A Man Who Protected Moral Derelicts, Celebrating Apostasy and Dereliction of Duty and To Be Loved by the Jews). Indeed, among the many other articles that have been written recently to attempt to deal a death-blow to the party that will take place in Rome on Low Sunday in two days, Father Luigi Villa has written what is the definitive article to prove, whether not it was Father Villa’s intention, to prove that Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II was not even a Catholic, no less a candidate for beatification and canonization by the Catholic Church. Only a few moments of your valuable time need to be spend to respond to an effort made by a biographer of the late “pontiff,” George Weigel, to explain away the false “pope’s” blame for covering up the crimes of clerical abuse.

Here is the article describing George Weigel’s own effort to defend and exalt the record of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II:

.- Scholar and papal biographer George Weigel batted aside criticism of John Paul II’s speedy canonization process, saying accusations that the pontiff is responsible for scandals that took place under his watch are ultimately unfounded.

“The investigation into John Paul II’s life has been very thorough, and the results fill four thick volumes,” Weigel told CNA in an April 25 interview.

Author of the 1999 biography of John Paul II, “Witness to Hope,” Weigel first countered the claim that the late pontiff’s canonization process has moved too quickly.

“John Paul himself waived the five-year waiting period usually prescribed between someone’s death and the official opening of a beatification process in the case of Mother Teresa – another instance where there was great popular conviction about the deceased’s sanctity,” he said.

Weigel also took on the argument that the sex abuse scandals which came to light during Pope John Paul’s pontificate –as well as the problems that began to surface with Fr. Marcial Maciel, founder of the Legionaries of Christ – are disqualifying factors.

“As a matter of fact, in the U.S. and elsewhere, the majority of abuses cases did not happen on John Paul II’s watch, although the revelations of them did,” he explained.

“John Paul II was a great reformer of the priesthood, and the Church’s ordained ministry is in far better shape today, because of him, than it was in 1978.”

“Unless one understands that, one is not in a very secure position from which to assess how John Paul handled the abuse crisis when it burst into public view in 2002,” he added.

Weigel acknowledged that certain Vatican offices, especially the Congregation for the Clergy, “were slower than they ought to have been in recognizing the nature of the problem in the United States and in devising appropriate remedies for it.”

However, as for Pope John Paul himself, “once it became clear, in April 2002, that this could not be handled by the American bishops themselves and that a papal intervention was required, he intervened and made unmistakably clear that ‘there is no place in the priesthood for those who would harm the young.’”

As for the Pope’s relationship with Fr. Maciel, Weigel said that John Paul II was “deceived” by the ex-priest, along with “many, many people.”

The papal biographer said that the only relevant questions with respect to the beatification are “whether John Paul II’s failure to see through Maciel’s deceptions was willful or venal or malicious.”

Weigel explained that the first situation would mean “he knew about Maciel’s perfidies and did nothing about the situation,” and the second would mean “he knew that Maciel was a sociopathic fraud and didn’t care.”

“There isn’t a shred of evidence that would sustain a positive answer to any of those questions,” he stressed. “To even think that such could be the case is to utterly miss the character of the late Pope.”

Weigel added that it’s “grotesquely disproportionate, from any serious historical point of view” to  “focus so much attention on Maciel at the time of John Paul II’s beatification, as if his case offered a privileged window into a twenty-six and a half year pontificate that changed the history of the Church and the world.”

Weigel also addressed the criticism that Pope John Paul failed in his duties, given the decline of Christianity in Europe in recent decades as well as the scandals under his pontificate.

“He didn’t fail, and those who suggest that he did are living in a very strange place,” he said.

“John Paul II’s radical Christian discipleship and his remarkable capacity to let that commitment shine through his words and his actions, made Christianity interesting and compelling again in a world that thought it had outgrown its ‘need’ for religious faith.”

The late Pope “was a man of extraordinary courage,” the papal biographer said. “Against the cultural conventions of his time, John Paul demonstrated that young people want to be challenged to live lives of heroism.”

“He lifted up the dignity of the human person,” and he “proclaimed the universality of human rights in a way that helped bring down the greatest tyranny in human history.”

“If this is papal ‘failure,’ I don’t know what papal success would look like,” Weigel said. (George Weigel slams critics of John Paul II’s fast track to sainthood.)

The record is very clear, although not in the manner that George Weigel would suggest.

Indeed, as has been demonstrated many times on this site, information about the extent of the clerical abuse that took place during Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II’s long “pontificate” was presented to him and to those close to him throughout the years. Indeed, some conciliar wags have attempted to dismiss John Paul’s protection of abusive “bishops” and “priests” by claiming that he did not want to believe the information that was given to him as he had been conditioned in Communist Poland to view accusations against the clergy made by the civil authorities as being founded in an effort to discredit the Catholic Church and to turn the people against their clergy.

John Paul II had much information about the extent of the clerical abuse, which did not just appear out of nowhere in 2002 when the Archdiocese of Boston’s legal team failed to file the necessary paperwork to keep its records from being made public. Reports of such abuse appeared regularly in The Wanderer and in the National Catholic Reporter. Although one other reporter did about ninety-nine percent of this reporting for The Wanderer, I did a few articles on the subject myself, conducting detailed investigations into matters that were entirely distasteful to consider, no less to report, including the articles that I wrote on the abuser by the name of Daniel Leo Ryan, the conciliar “bishop” of Springfield, Illinois, from 1983 to 1999.

The publisher-editor of The Wanderer even waited to publish the first article on “Bishop” Ryan until he had sent a letter to a conciliar priest, now an auxiliary “bishop” in this country, who worked in the Congregation for the Bishops. It is furthermore the case that the late Father John A. Hardon, S.J., brought one of the conciliar priests who had been abused by Ryan to meet with the then pro-prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, Dario “Cardinal” Castrillon Hoyos in February of 1997. And Francis “Cardinal” George, who has been the conciliar “archbishop” of Chicago for the past twenty-four years, admitted in January of 1998 to Stephen G. Brady, the president and the founder of Roman Catholic Faithful, Inc., that he, “Cardinal” George had known all about Ryan’s moral corruption of the then conciliar “bishop” of for years, urging Mr. Brady to “wait” before expose more evidence about Ryan in addition to the information that had been brought forth by Brady in February of 1997 and was reported by this writer in the pages of The Wanderer (see Roman Catholic Faithful Accuses Bishop Ryan of Harassment and More Witnesses Emerge in Bishop Ryan Case; these articles–and an editorial that I wrote that appears on the same page as the second article–were, of course, eight years before I, bright light that I am, finally concluded that the Catholic Church could be responsible for none of the outrages that I was criticizing). Ryan was allowed to resign in “good standing” in the conciliar structures in 1999, and it was not until 2003 that a commission appointed by George got around, quite belatedly, to admitting that the charges against Ryan were true all along. Steve Brady had been correct all along.

This did not occur on John Paul II’s “watch”? John Paul II did not know about this? Nonsense. Quite the contrary is true. The soon to be “beatified” “pontiff” had quite an extensive intelligence network that he relied upon during the early years of his “pontificate” by which his aides were able to gather evidence about various “bishops” before they made their quinquennial or ad limina apostolorum visits to the Vatican. Some of this evidence was gathered by Father Hardon, who died on December 30, 2000. Other priests, including the late Monsignor George Kelly, who worked closely with John “Cardinal” Wright and Silvio Cardinal Oddi during their respective tenures as prefects of the Congregation for the Clergy, also sent information to “papal” aides that was used during the interviews that John Paul II had with various “bishops.”

One of those interviews took place with the late John Raymond McGann, who was the conciliar “bishop” of my home diocese, the Diocese of Rockville Centre, from 1976 to 2000 despite his record of ultra-progressivism that I documented so many times in The Wanderer, a little over twenty-eight years ago, in April of 1983. John Paul II questioned McGann closely as to why four parishes in his diocese did not schedule confessions during the recently-concluded Paschal Triduum. McGann responded by saying, “Well, you know, Your Holiness, our priests are very busy.” How do I know this? Because an auxiliary “bishop” of the diocese spoke about the “papal” interview publicly at a reception at Saint Gertrude Church in Bayville, New York, following his putative administration of the conciliar rite of confirmation. Anyone who says that John Paul II did not have an intelligence network and/or that his aides “kept” information from him is the one living in a fantasy world.

George Weigel fails to mention the little fact that John Paul II rewarded the enabler of Father Paul Shanley, who cofounded an organization whose name is so repulsive that it will not be repeated here, Bernard “Cardinal” Law, by appointing him the archpriest of the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome, where he still served to this day. No place in the clergy for abusers? Why did John Paul II continue to reward the “bishops” who protected the abusers? The rhetoric of the false “pontiff” in 2002 was meaningless, backed up by no disciplinary actions against the “bishops.” This is why I wrote Time for Plain Talk in 2002, four years before I came to recognize and accept the true state of Holy Mother Church in this time of apostasy and betrayal.

Insofar as the Legionaries of Christ is concerned, it is no accident that its corrupt, venal founder maintained his “reputation” throughout John Paul II’s tenure even though I know for a fact that information was sent directly to the Apostolic Palace by former presbyters in the Legion about the problems there, including that the community’s founder, Father Marcel Maciel Degollado, had abused them physically and tortured them emotionally. The very man who is pushing for the “canonization” of John Paul II, the current conciliar “archbishop of Krakow, Poland, Stanislaw Dziwisz, who was Wojtyla/John Paul II’s personal secretary for many years, took bundles of cash from those with ties to the Legionaries of Christ:

The Vatican office with the greatest potential to derail Maciel’s career before 2001 — the year that Ratzinger persuaded John Paul to consolidate authority of abuse investigations in his office – was the Congregation for Religious, which oversaw religious orders such as the Dominicans, Franciscans and Legionaries, among many others.

According to two former Legionaries who spent years in Rome, Maciel paid for the renovation of the residence in Rome for the Argentine cardinal who was prefect of religious from 1976 to 1983, the late Eduardo Francisco Pironio. “That’s a pretty big resource,” explains one priest, who said the Legion’s work on the residence was expensive, and widely known at upper levels of the order. “Pironio got his arm twisted to sign the Legion constitution.”

The Legion constitution included the highly controversial Private Vows, by which each Legionary swore never to speak ill of Maciel, or the superiors, and to report to them anyone who uttered criticism. The vows basically rewarded spying as an expression of faith, and cemented the Legionaries’ lockstep obedience to the founder. The vows were Maciel’s way of deflecting scrutiny as a pedophile. But cardinals on the consultors’ board at Congregation for Religious balked on granting approval.

“Therefore, Maciel went to the pope through Msgr. Dziwisz,” said the priest. “Two weeks later Pironio signed it.”

Dziwisz was John Paul’s closest confidante, a Pole who had a bedroom in the private quarters of the Apostolic Palace. Maciel spent years cultivating Dziwisz’s support. Under Maciel, the Legion steered streams of money to Dziwisz in his function as gatekeeper for the pope’s private Masses in the Apostolic Palace. Attending Mass in the small chapel was a rare privilege for the occasional head of state, like British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his family. “Mass would start at 7 a.m., and there was always someone in attendance: laypeople, or priests, or groups of bishops,” Dziwisz wrote in a 2008 memoir, A Life With Karol: My Forty-Year Friendship With the Man Who Became Pope.

“When the guests came in (there were never more than 50),” Dziwisz wrote, “they often found the pope kneeling in prayer with his eyes closed, in a state of total abandonment, almost of ecstasy, completely unaware of who was entering the chapel. … For the laypeople, it was a great spiritual experience. The Holy Father attached extreme importance to the presence of the lay faithful.”

One of the ex-Legionaries in Rome told NCR that a Mexican family in 1997 gave Dziwisz $50,000 upon attending Mass. “We arranged things like that,” he said of his role as go-between. Did John Paul know about the funds? Only Dziwisz would know. Given the pope’s ascetic lifestyle and accounts of his charitable giving, the funds could have gone to a deserving cause. Dziwisz’s book says nothing of donations and contains no mention of Maciel or the Legion. The priest who arranged for the Mexican family to attend Mass worried, in hindsight, about the frequency with which Legionaries facilitated funds to Dziwisz.

“This happened all the time with Dziwisz,” said a second ex-Legionary, who was informed of the transactions.

Fr. Alvaro Corcuera, who would succeed Maciel as director general in 2004, and one or two other Legionaries “would go up to see Dziwisz on the third floor. They were welcomed. They were known within the household.”

Struggling to give context to the donations, this cleric continued: “You’re saying these laypeople are good and fervent, it’s good for them to meet the pope. The expression is opera carita — ‘We’re making an offering for your works of charity.’ That’s the way it’s done. In fact you don’t know where the money’s going.” He paused. “It’s an elegant way of giving a bribe.”

Recalling those events, he spoke of what made him leave the Legion. “I woke up and asked: Am I giving my life to serve God, or one man who had his problems? It was not worth consecrating myself to Maciel.”

What’s a bribe?

In terms of legal reality, does “an elegant way of giving a bribe” add up to bribery? The money from Maciel was given to heads of congregations in the early 1990s and the newspaper exposure of Maciel did not occur until 1997, and the canon law case in 1998.

Further, such exchanges are not considered bribes in the view of Nicholas Cafardi, a prominent canon lawyer and the dean emeritus of Duquesne University Law School in Pittsburgh. Cafardi, who has done work as a legal consultant for many bishops, responded to a general question about large donations to priests or church officials in the Vatican.

Under church law (canon 1302), a large financial gift to an official in Rome “would qualify as a pious cause,” explains Cafardi. He spoke in broad terms, saying that such funds should be reported to the cardinal-vicar for Rome. An expensive gift, like a car, need not be reported.

“That’s how I read the law. I know of no exceptions. Cardinals do have to report gifts for pious causes. If funds are given for the official’s personal charity, that is not a pious cause and need not be reported.”

Because the cardinals did not respond to interview requests, NCR has been unable to determine whether they reported to Vatican officials the money they allegedly received from the Legion.

“Maciel wanted to buy power,” said the priest who facilitated the Mexican family’s opera carita to Dziwisz. He did not use the word bribery, but in explaining why he left the Legion, morality was at issue. “It got to a breaking point for me [over] a culture of lying [within the order]. The superiors know they’re lying and they know that you know,” he said. “They lie about money, where it comes from, where it goes, how it’s given.” (Money paved way for Maciel’s influence in the Vatican.)

John Paul II did not know any of this? If he did not, he should have known. And that is what a real examination of a candidate’s cause for canonization would examine as this is, at the very least, dereliction of duty by acts of omission by failing to see that one’s trust in another is misplaced and is resulting in the wreckage of souls.

As has been noted on other occasions, however, this is all very much apart from the point as Karol Wojtyla/John Paul defected from the Catholic Faith long before his apparent “election” on October 16, 1978, reaffirming the fact of this defection by his apostate words and blasphemous, sacrilegious deeds throughout the course of his twenty-six years, five and one-half months as the head of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Far from “revitalizing Christianity,” John Paul II presided over the further institutionalization of the conciliar revolutions, appointed his fellow revolutionaries as conciliar “ordinaries,” and conducting the most scandalous liturgies that have ever been sponsored by any entity claiming, albeit falsely, to be the Catholic Church. He demeaned his “papacy” by his acts of clownishness and as he suborned rank immodesty in liturgical stagings and at his weekly “general audience” extravaganzas.

John Paul II advanced the “dignity of the human person” and the “universality of human rights”? Let’s see what two of our true popes have written about human dignity and its exaltation by the spirit of Modernity and Modernism:

The world has heard enough of the so-called “rights of man.” Let it hear something of the rights of God. That the time is suitable is proved by the very general revival of religious feeling already referred to, and especially that devotion towards Our Saviour of which there are so many indications, and which, please God, we shall hand on to the New Century as a pledge of happier times to come. But as this consummation cannot be hoped for except by the aid of divine grace, let us strive in prayer, with united heart and voice, to incline Almighty God unto mercy, that He would not suffer those to perish whom He had redeemed by His Blood. May He look down in mercy upon this world, which has indeed sinned much, but which has also suffered much in expiation! And, embracing in His loving-kindness all races and classes of mankind, may He remember His own words: “I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to Myself” (John xii., 32).  (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)

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 Catholicism 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.)

Ah, you see, George Weigel has contempt for our true popes. The hagiographer of John Paul II went so far as to say in an address at Christendom College in Front Royal, Virginia, in 1999 after the publication of his Witness to Hope, that “This pope really knows how to pope!” Nope, George Weigel. Nope. The popes quoted above were defending the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church that was undermined relentlessly by the revolutionary reign of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, a false pontiff whose exercises in religious syncretism reaffirmed Catholics and non-Catholics alike in the abject falsehood that all religions serve God and thus contribute to the betterment of the world. This is a lie from the devil.

Enjoy the party, George, enjoy the party this weekend. The celebration that will take place in the Vatican this Low Sunday does not reflect the sorrows of Our Lady, whose Most Holy Rosary was itself revolutionized by the disciple of the condemned tenets of the “new theology,” Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, whose “witness” drove millions upon millions of Catholics out of what they believed was the Catholic Church and whose blasphemous, sacrilegious acts gave fodder to many fundamentalist and evangelical Protestant sects to recruit those who had left as a result into their own diabolical ranks.

Let me close by reiterating what I did ten days ago as there is no need to change a single word of what I wrote then:

Once again, the “cause” of Wojtyla/John Paul II is absurd to begin with as it is being advanced by apostates who have defected from the Faith just as much as he did.

As I have noted so many times on this site, those who remain indifferent to or accepting of blasphemies and sacrileges committed against the honor and glory and majesty of God can no longer call themselves Catholics:

But it is vain for them to adopt the name of catholic, as they do not oppose these blasphemies: they must believe them, if they can listen so patiently to such words. (Pope Saint Leo the Great, Epistle XIV, To Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica, St. Leo the Great | Letters 1-59 )

 I was indifferent to the blasphemies of Wojtyla/John Paul II for far too long. I was fooled by the fact that the late conciliar “pontiff” spoke as a Catholic to Catholics on many occasions. Shame on me for being so blind.

We know more now, do we not? We see God being offended regularly by these conciliar “popes” who deny the nature of dogmatic truth and believe in other condemned propositions that have been critiqued on this site time and time again. How can we remain attached to men who defy the anathemas of the Catholic Church repeatedly as they offend the Most Holy Trinity so grievously?

The Catholics in Alexandria held steadfast to the true Faith for a long time in the midst of one persecution after another than was waged against them by the Arian bishops and their protectors in the Roman Empire, including Emperor Constantius II and Emperor Julian the Apostate:

It was indeed the hour of darkness, and it seemed as if the powers of evil were let loose upon the world. The Arians, with the Emperor on their side, were carrying everything before them. Nearly all the Bishops who had uphold the Nicene faith were in exile or in prison.

St. Antony, over a hundred years old, was on his deathbed. His monks, crowding around the dying Saint, groaned over the evil days that had befallen the Church.

“Fear not,” replied the old man, “for this power is of the earth and cannot last. As for the sufferings of the Church, was it not so from the beginning, and will it not be so until the end? Did not the Master Himself say, ‘They have persecuted Me, they will persecute you also’? Did not the ‘perils from the fallen brethren’ begin even even in the lifetime of those who had been the companions of Christ? And yet, did not the Master Himself promise that, although she must live in the midst of persecution, He would be with His Church forever and that the gates of Hell should not prevail against her?”

With these words of hope and comfort on his lips, St. Antony passed to his reward, and they laid him in his lonely desert grave. His coat of sheepskin, given by Athanasius long years before, he sent with his dying blessing to the Patriarch, who cherished it as his most precious possession.

The Alexandrians had not given in without a struggle. They had protested openly against the violence of Syrianus, proclaiming throughout the city that Athanasius was their true Patriarch and that they would never acknowledge another. It was of no use; a new reign of terror began in which all who refused to accept the Arian creed were treated as criminals. Men and women were seized and scourged; some were slain. Athanasius was denounced as a “runaway, an evildoer, a cheat and an impostor, deserving of death.” Letters came from the Emperor ordering all the churches in the city to be given up to the Arians and requiring the people to receive without objections the new Patriarch whom he would shortly send them.

As time went on, things grew worse. The churches were invaded; altars, vestments and books were burned and incense thrown on the flames. An ox was sacrificed in the sanctuary; priests, monks and nuns were seized and tortured; the houses of the faithful were broken into and robbed. Bishops were driven into exile and their sees filled by Arians, those who were ready to give the most money being generally chosen. Some of them were even pagans; the people were ready to bear any sufferings rather than hold communion with them. (Mother Frances Alice Monica Forbes, Saint Athanasius, reprinted by TAN Books and Publishers, pp. 64-66.)

 Why are we so willing to hold communion with the heretics and blasphemers of today? Why are so willing to hold communion with those who are indifferent to the heretics and blasphemers of today?

Ah, some might retort, Arianism had been condemned by the Fathers of the Council of Nicaea. True enough. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s views of dogmatic truth have been condemned and anathematized solemnly by the [First] Vatican Council and by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, and in The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910, and by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950. His views on Sacred Scripture and against Scholasticism and in favor of the new ecclesiology and false ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue and inter-religious “prayer” and religious liberty and separation of Church and State have been condemned by the authority of the Catholic Church (see Ratzinger’s War Against Catholicism). We just need to ask open our eyes and to see the plain truth that is staring us right in the face.

To this end, of course, we need Our Lady’s help. We honor Our Lady today as the Mediatrix of All Graces. It is through her loving hands that the graces won for us by her Divine Son on the wood of the Holy Cross in obedience to God the Father and that are made present in the Sacraments by the working of God the Holy Ghost flow into our own hearts and souls. She, the great foe of heresy, will help us to recognize the plain truth that the jaws of Hell have indeed prevailed against the Church if true and legitimate Successors of Saint Peter can deny Catholic doctrine openly and publicly as they hold give public expression to private views that expelled them from the Church long before their apparent “election.” And she will help us to have the courage to cleave exclusively only to those true bishops and true priests in the Catholic catacombs who make no concessions to conciliarism or its blaspheming apostates posing as “popes” and “bishops.”

Once again, we need to take heart from the example of Saint Servatus:

Servatus held the bishopric of Tongres (Belgium) at a time when the whole of Christendom had Arian tendencies. The all-powerful emperor, Constantius, was a heretic and supported the heresy; many bishops no longer believed in the divinity of Our Lord; St. Athanasius and St. Hilary, great champions of orthodoxy, were in exile.

The story of the Jewish origins of St. Servatus and his kinship with St. Anne appears legendary. It is not known when he became bishop of Tongres, but by 336, when St. Athanasius spent his exile at Trier, he had already occupied the see. The declaration which he made before the Council of Cologne in 346 informs us both of his meeting with the celebrated Alexandrian doctor and of his own orthodoxy. This is what he says in reference to the bishop of Cologne, deposed on that occasion: “It is not from hearsay that I know what he has been teaching, but from having myself heard it. Our churches are adjacent; many times I have had occasion to contradict him, when he has denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. It has happened in the presence of Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria. .. . I judge that he can no longer be bishop of Christians; and those do not deserve to be considered Christians who remain in communion with him.”

After failing in his efforts to reconcile the usurper, Magnetius, with the Emperor Constantius, Servatus made a pilgrimage to Rome. He returned convinced that Tongres would soon fall to the Huns. Hastily he carried the relics of the church to Maestricht, and there, shortly afterwards, he died. The towns of Tongres remained thereafter for nearly a century without a bishop. (Omer Engelbert, The Lives of the Saints, Barnes and Noble, p. 186.)

 Even a now deceased  conciliar official conceded in 2005 what many in the “resist and recognize” movement, including those in the Society of Saint Pius X, refuse to concede even in principle as being true, no less that this truth applies in these our days, namely, that the See of Peter is indeed vacant in cases of heresy:

It is true that the canonical doctrine states that the see would be vacant in the case of heresy. … But in regard to all else, I think what is applicable is what judgment regulates human acts. And the act of will, namely a resignation or capacity to govern or not govern, is a human act. (Cardinal Says Pope Could Govern Even If Unable to Speak, Zenit, February 8, 2005; for an explanation of how a long papal vacancy is not excluded by the doctrine of perpetual successors of Saint Peter, please see, Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D., An Objection to Sedevacantism: ‘Perpetual Successors’ to Peter.)

Holy Mother Church, our spotless, immaculate mother on earth, cannot give us even any teaching with “even a light tarnish of error.

We are in the midst of the “operation of error,” awash with apostasy and blasphemy that can never be given us by Holy Mother Church, which is why we must be pray for our true bishops and priests so that they will be remain as faithful as Saint Athanasius and that we will remain steadfast in our knowledge that we have the Faith while the blaspheming apostates have the church buildings and other church properties.

In the midst of the “respect” shown for false religions by the conciliar “pontiffs,” men who never invoke the doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity in their appearances before non-Catholics, who most need to hear exhortations to convert to the true Faith before they die, it is good to once again take note of Pope Leo XIII;s words in Custodi di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892, and to recognize that they condemn the life work of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI:

Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)

 Let George Weigel try to refute the work of Father Luigi Villa, linked earlier in this article, on the “beatification” of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II without resorting to positivism and emotionalism. He will be unable to do so. Perhaps he could do a joint project in this regard with Robert Moynihan. They will be unable to do so, which is why Father Villa’s work must be ignored.

Keeping close to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary as we end the Easter Octave, may we pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit as we continue to offer up all of our prayers and sufferings and sacrifices to that same Sacred Heart through the Immaculate Heart out of which It was formed and with which It beats as one. May it be our privilege to plant a few seeds for the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary as we attempt to make reparation to Jesus through Mary for our sins and those of the whole world as we make reparation for our own sins and those of the conciliar revolutionary whose life will be so honored in but two days.

Isn’t it time to pray a Rosary now?

Our Lady, Mediatrix of All Graces, pray for us.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

  May 2, 2011

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)

And such are the prayers of the Jews, for when they stretch forth their hands in prayer, they only remind God-the-Father of their sin against His Son. And at every stretching-forth of their hands, they only make it obvious that they are stained with the blood of Christ. For they who persevere in their blindness inherit the blood-guilt of their fathers; for they cried out: “His blood be on us and on our children” (Mt. 27:25). (St. Basil the Great)

Poor Jews! You invoked a dreadful curse upon your own heads; and that curse, miserable race, you carry upon you to this day, and to the End of Time you shall endure the chastisement of that innocent blood! (St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori) [Each of the quotes cited after those of Saint John Chrysostom were provided by a hard-working defender of the Catholic Faith and a very good friend, Mr. Mark Stabinksi, who found them in The Book of Faith, Book III, Chapter 4: THE ONCE-CHOSEN PEOPLE – NOW An Accursed Race, which itself is drawn from the Apostolic Digest and found on the Catholic Apologetics Info site; see also The same god that Benedict XVI worships with the Jews.)

That’s a whole lot of mistakes that went uncorrected by the authority of the Catholic Church until October 28, 1965, which was, not so coincidentally, the seventh anniversary of the “election” of Angelo Roncalli as the bogus “successor” of Pope Pius XII, who died on October 9, 1958. That’s a whole lot of mistakes.

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)

And such are the prayers of the Jews, for when they stretch forth their hands in prayer, they only remind God-the-Father of their sin against His Son. And at every stretching-forth of their hands, they only make it obvious that they are stained with the blood of Christ. For they who persevere in their blindness inherit the blood-guilt of their fathers; for they cried out: “His blood be on us and on our children” (Mt. 27:25). (St. Basil the Great)

Poor Jews! You invoked a dreadful curse upon your own heads; and that curse, miserable race, you carry upon you to this day, and to the End of Time you shall endure the chastisement of that innocent blood! (St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori) [Each of the quotes cited after those of Saint John Chrysostom were provided by a hard-working defender of the Catholic Faith and a very good friend, Mr. Mark Stabinksi, who found them in The Book of Faith, Book III, Chapter 4: THE ONCE-CHOSEN PEOPLE – NOW An Accursed Race, which itself is drawn from the Apostolic Digest and found on the Catholic Apologetics Info site; see also The same god that Benedict XVI worships with the Jews.)

That’s a whole lot of mistakes that went uncorrected by the authority of the Catholic Church until October 28, 1965, which was, not so coincidentally, the seventh anniversary of the “election” of Angelo Roncalli as the bogus “successor” of Pope Pius XII, who died on October 9, 1958. That’s a whole lot of mistakes.

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.

                August 19, 2013

Francis: The Latest in a Long Line of Ecclesiastical Tyrants

by Thomas A. Droleskey

The social revolutions of Modernity have much in common with the liturgical, doctrinal and moral revolutions of Modernism.

Revolutionaries must first agitate the masses into believing that the “past” was bad and that they will provide a future that relies upon supposedly “simpler” and “purer” means to achieve justice and equity for all.

Revolutionaries must seek to eradicate all vestiges of the past in the name of “novelty” and “innovation” as they create “new structures” that merely give new names to what had existed in the past.

Revolutionaries must eliminate all opposition to their schemes of total control as they seek to institutionalize their schemes and to prevent them from being reversed in the future.

Revolutionaries must change even the dating of time as they circulate new calendars to date the beginning of “real history” from the outset of their revolution.

Although largely anecdotal and not as of yet recounted in a systematic manner in any one place, many of us know numerous instances in which priests and religious have been sent to psychiatric reprogramming centers because they resisted the first wave of the conciliar “reforms” in the middle to latter part of the 1960s. This persecution of those deemed to be “conservative” or “rigid” has continued in many dioceses and religious communities to this very day.

We were told some six years ago now of some very compelling stories by a consecrated religious woman who had worked as a nurse prior to entering the religious life, one of which involved a religious in the 1960s who was told by her superiors to report to a psychiatrist for “evaluation” because she would not give up her community’s traditional habit.

The psychiatrist knew the consecrated religious because she had worked in the same hospital for a while as a nurse. He told to get out of the hospital immediately, that there was nothing was with her, but that she should not return to her community as there was an effort to imprison those priests and religious who resisted the conciliar changes. The psychiatrist led the religious woman, who told the story to our narrator, herself in traditional religious life, to a door where she could exit without being noticed, although she had seen many of her “disappeared” sisters sitting in wheelchairs in a doped-up state on her way into the psychiatrist’s office. (For an account of the then “Archbishop” Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis’s persecution of religious sisters in Buenos Aires, Argentina, please see the appendix below, which has been translated from the Spanish original by a reader of this site, Mr. Juan Carlos Araneta.)

This particular story has credibility as I know of men who have been candidates for the conciliar presbyterate who have been screened out in many dioceses and religious communities because they have been deemed to suffer from “rigidity.”

As I have recounted on other occasions, the secular Talmudic psychologist who screened candidates for the Diocese of Rockville Centre for many years, Dr. Leonard Krinsky, came to some interesting conclusions following about me in May of 1979 following a psychological evaluation of me. Dr. Krinsky, now deceased, wrote that my concept of the priesthood as the sacerdos was preconciliar and that my desire to live a priestly life of prayer, penance, self-denial and mortification were “possible signs of masochism. Dr. Krinsky’s report concluded by saying that while I was “intelligent, creative, and had the capacity for rich, interpersonal relationships,” I “lacked the sufficient flexibility needed to adapt to the changing circumstances of a postconciliar vocation.”’

Yes, yes, yes. One is supposed be “flexible” enough to adapt with ease to the changes wrought by the doctrinal, liturgical, moral and pastoral revolutions of conciliarism, including the radical “simplification” of the liturgical calendar that changed well established feast days in direct contravention of Pope Pius XII’s admonition contained in Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947:

The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast-days — which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation — to other dates; those, finally, who delete from the prayer books approved for public use the sacred texts of the Old Testament, deeming them little suited and inopportune for modern times.

The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See.

The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world. They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.

Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive table form; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.

Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.

This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise. It likewise attempts to reinstate a series of errors which were responsible for the calling of that meeting as well as for those resulting from it, with grievous harm to souls, and which the Church, the ever watchful guardian of the “deposit of faith” committed to her charge by her divine Founder, had every right and reason to condemn. For perverse designs and ventures of this sort tend to paralyze and weaken that process of sanctification by which the sacred liturgy directs the sons of adoption to their Heavenly Father of their souls’ salvation. (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947.)

The doctrinal, liturgical, moral and pastoral revolutions of conciliarism did not begin in 1962, however, at the opening of the “Second” Vatican Council on October 11, the Feast of the Divinity Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII just prior to the public outbreak of the Cuban Missile Crisis. (It appears it retrospect that it wouldn’t have been a bad thing for a Third World War to have taken place at that time as the nuclear war against the Faith at the “Second” Vatican Council has done far more damage to souls than even a full-fledged nuclear war between the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and those of the Warsaw Pact!)

No, these revolutions that are being championed anew with great zeal by Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis have antecedent roots going back to elements of the Renaissance and, more directly, can be traced to the Protestant Revolution, the subsequent rise of Judeo-Masonry and the anti-Theistic, anti-Incarnational revolutions of Modernity (French Revolution, Italian Risorgimento, Bismarck’s Kulturkampf, the Bolshevik Revolution, the various revolutions in Mexico and Spain and, of course, the Maoist Revolution in China and the Castro Revolution in Cuba that spread its spread in the form of “liberation theology” throughout Latin America was imposed in Nicaragua after the Sandinista Revolution of 1979.

The revolution wrought by the ideology of Charles Darwin’s evolutionism helped to make more possible the triumph of Georg Hegel’s dialectical evolution of belief within the minds of Catholic theologians, resulting, of course, in Modernism. It is important to spend a few moments on evolutionism as its ideological pull impelled the likes of the proto-Modernists condemned by Pope Pius IX in The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864, and at the [First] Vatican Council on April 24, 1970, and the Modernists themselves into becoming apologists in behalf of the heresy of “evolution of dogma.”

The false, disproved ideology of evolutionism has resulted in many evils, some of which may be summarized as follows:

(1) When we do not love God as He has revealed Himself through His true Church–especially when we come to believe that “God” is merely a concept reflective of an evolutionary process in the world, then we make gods out of ourselves and our desires. Superstitions and the occult, political ideologies and the exigencies of electoral politics, bread and circuses become the “‘gods” which are worshiped. This erodes a knowledge of the human being as an adopted child of the Living God by virtue of Our Lord’s Redemptive Act on the wood of the Holy Cross.

People who lack an understanding of who they are in light of Who has created and redeemed them fall quite easily into lives of self-seeking and pleasure. Evolutionism feeds into this worshiping of false gods by its contention that everything in the world is subject to a continuous process of growth and development, culminating in the realization of the false promises of some political ideology and/or in the ever delusional realization of the sort of “progress” which will make human suffering impossible. This is of the essence of the various manifestations of the New Age movement.

(2) A lack of belief in God as He has revealed Himself through His true Church leads inexorably to all manner of blasphemies being committed against the Holy Name, all of which are accepted as a matter of routine and just an ordinary part of human existence. Indeed, one is thought to be sophisticated and avant-garde if one participates actively in entertainment fare which degrades holy things, puts into question or deny altogether articles contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith, and helps to destroy reverence for all things that pertain to the salvation of souls.

Sadly, conciliar “bishops,” priests/presbyters, pseudo-theologians and male and female consecrated religious have participated in this spirit of irreverence, especially as it relates to the revolutionary deconstruction of the Faith into meaninglessness and of convincing the laity that Sacred Liturgy itself has to be subject to evolutionary forces of change which need the same sort of “revolutionary push” that Karl Marx believed had to be applied to the inevitable triumph of the worldwide spread of communism. Our liturgy had to evolve to the point where the Mass is no longer considered to be the unbloody re-presentation of God the Son’s Sacrifice of Himself to His Co-Equal and Co-Eternal God the Father on the wood of the Holy Cross in Spirit and in Truth.

The Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service is, as we have discovered, merely an exercise in community togetherness in which we “recall” the events of the past. Church architecture must “evolve” to reflect this new consciousness, especially by the removal of the tabernacle from the center of churches in conciliar captivity and from their naves altogether. And we have evidence from the conciliar “popes” themselves, including Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, the “Petrine Ministry” must “evolve” in a manner conducive to the very sort of pan-Christianity specifically condemned by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928: the creation of a “federation” of Christian sects, conferring upon those who dissent from the Deposit of Faith a status of equality and unity with the entirety of Apostolic Tradition and Succession.

(3) Disrespect for the sacredness of the Lord’s Day, Sunday, is the natural result of evolutionism’s attack upon Special Creation. If the Blessed Trinity is not honored as our First Cause and Last End because we are simply the descendants of beasts who themselves were the result of random biological forces at work in the world, then why should we pay any heed to the sacredness of the day upon which Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s Easter victory over the power of sin and eternal death was made manifest as He burst forth from the tomb where He had lain for forty hours?

“Modern man” lives only on the natural level to satisfy his natural desires and urges, which is why he believes that Sunday should be a day of commerce and business,” something that the lords of conciliarism have helped to make more possible by making it easy for those Catholics interested in attending the fellowship service on Saturday evenings, thus “liberating” Sundays for those things that really matter (football, basketball, baseball, shopping, swimming, boating, picnicking, sleeping, working at servile labor around the house).

(4) Evolutionism helped to expedite the deliberate, planned destruction of the stability of the family, desired by Judeo-Masonry as the means to create whole categories of people who were dependent upon the beneficence of the state for their daily sustenance. The arrogation unto the state of the Natural Law right of parents to educate their children as they see fit helped to produce graduates of public high schools and universities and colleges who were conditioned to accept relativism and positivism and utilitarianism and religious indifferentism as givens in the life of man and his society which were beyond question.

Why, then, should, children honor their mother and their father when we owe our first allegiance to the state?

Why shown grown children bear the economic burden of caring for those who brought them into this world when the state has an entitlement program to obviate the Fourth Commandment’s teaching about the necessity of grown children supporting their parents when the latter become incapable of supporting themselves?

If the only thing that matters if our personal self-indulgence–and that there is no ultimate authority over us (Christ the King as He rules through His true Church), then there is no reason for children to obey their parents, for students to obey teachers, for workers to obey the just orders of their superiors, for citizens to conform their lives to civil laws that are in full conformity with the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.

(5) There is little which needs to be said of evolutionism’s impact upon the inviolability of all innocent human life from the moment of conception through all subsequent stages until natural death.

People who believe they are the product of blind forces will treat other human beings with little or no respect whatsoever.

Indeed, the soulless basis of modern life leads people into dehumanizing anyone and everyone who poses a threat to one’s standard of living and/or poses an inconvenience to one’s daily routine.

Thus, surgical abortion, random killings, acts of mass murder, euthanasia, suicide, drug addiction, alcoholism, gluttony, body piercing, tattooing, and other forms of bodily mutilation, road rage, fits of uncontrolled anger, and physical and verbal assaults upon those who happen to be in in the path of one’s “line of fire” become a normal part of human society.

However, the illogic of this schizophrenic world leads people who think they are nothing more than beasts into expressing outrage over some incidents of violence, which must be blamed on the objects used to inflict the violence on others (guns, for example) or an evolutionary social forces which need to be understood by the insights gained form psychology, sociology, anthropology, and other pseudo-scientific disciplines. An unconcern with living in the Divine Presence as children of the true Church leads ultimately to the triumph of sloth, where students and workers care not one whit about pursing excellence as befits redeemed creatures. This is what accounts for the surliness and incompetence we find in practically every aspect of our society. A belief in evolutionism leads naturally to devolution of personal behavior.

(6) One of the most insidious influences of evolutionism upon human beings is its alliance with Freudianism and other ideologies which undermine the sanctity of marriage and the indissolubility of a ratified and consummated sacramental marriage.

If we are beasts incapable of controlling urges and who must be concerned principally about personal pleasure, then it is only natural for people to seek to engage in acts against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments that are illicit. Indeed, children, in particular, must be encouraged in the evil of explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining Holy Purity in order to violate all of the precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments as an expression of their individuality.

Contraception thus becomes something that is beyond question. Perversity must be propagandized in all of the means of mass communication (which means of mass communications themselves are in control of the evolutionists and relativists and positivists and statists and collectivists). Divorce and feminism, both of which undermine the stability of the family and thus that of society, also become vitally important constituent elements of the false world created as a result of the forces which have been evolving from the time of the Renaissance, including that of evolutionism itself.

(7) Respect for private property is also undermined by evolutionism.

It is really quite simple: if we arose as a result of forces which emerged from some primordial “soup,” then we have no right to own anything. The “earth” owns us, and it is therefore our obligation to worship it as the source of our lives rather than to use it as the good stewards God exhorts us to be in the Book of Genesis. The way is thus paved wide open for the triumph of collectivism and statism.

If, as Marx contended, the human being lacks a soul and is only a higher form of animal, then he lacks an individual personality. He is thus part of the collectivity from which he receives his consciousness of being. His own individuality must therefore be subordinated to the demands of the collectivity. Rather than serve God by means of employing the good He has permitted us to enjoy as the fruits of our own labor offered up to Him for His greater honor and glory and for the sanctification of our own immortal souls, we work for the greater good of the collective consciousness, to confiscate our private property to use as its leaders see fit for the achievement of an evolutionary concept of progress and human development.

Additionally, evolutionism helps to teach people to disregard the property rights of others in their own private lives as well as to exculpate themselves from having to fulfill conscientiously the duties that demands of simple justice require of them in their daily work (whether they work for themselves or for others). Human beings thus become the slaves of the government and of large multi-national corporations, entities that treat their slaves with contempt and indignity heaped upon indignity. A natural result of stealing the legitimate property of human beings is that the “rights” of irrational beasts are exalted over those of God’s rational creatures.

(8) Truth is a fundamental casualty of evolutionism.

Evolutionism is a lie.

It bears false witness concerning the creation of the human being by God in the Garden of Eden and thus the necessity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christs’s Redemptive Act on the wood of the Holy Cross. If we do not believe that we are to be held accountable by God for what we say and how we act, then there is no whatsoever to restrain ourselves from lying–even in the smallest of matters–to accomplish that which we desire for our own gain. Perjury, calumny, and detraction thus become standard fare in a world wherein most people believe in a lie about their origins. Obviously, words themselves can “evolve,” as noted before with respect to Protestantism, to such an extent that their plain meaning is subject to the interpretation and rationalization of those who have a vested interest in creating their own individual worlds, their own “alternative realities.” It all depends on what the meaning of “is, is,” right?

(9) People who are unconcerned about living in such a way as to die in a state of Sanctifying Grace busy themselves by envying the goods and the lives and the talents of others. A Catholic is supposed to understand that each of us is given a distinctive set of gifts. No other human being has ever had, has now, or will ever have the distinctive set of gifts given to us at the moment of our creation in our mothers’ wombs. God the Holy Ghost helps to build up the Church Militant on the face of this earth by the inherently unequal distribution of gifts, both spiritual and temporal, in order to help us rely upon each other for the accomplishment of our Last End, as well as for the fulfillment of the obligations of our state-in-life in this vale of tears. We must never be envious of the gifts or the lives or the good of others.

However, fallen human nature is ever ready to engage in envy, one of the seven deadly or capital sins, even more so if it is given encouragement to do so by those who insist that the very purpose of human existence is to have a lavish lifestyle as the first end of life and that we are entitled therefore to have what others have in order to be “happier” than we are at present. This stands in direct contrast to a Catholic’s understanding that everything we have is meant to direct us toward the things of eternity, and that we are to be detached from the things, people and places of this passing world, striving always to understand that true happiness here comes from perduring in a state of sanctifying grace, the necessary precondition for eternal happiness in the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.

Thus, it is plain to see that evolutionism feeds into fallen man’s desire to consider himself in charge of the universe. However, it is simply pat of man’s nature to seek to worship something that is above himself. And if man is not going to worship the true God as He has revealed Himself through His true Church, then he will be led by false belief systems, including evolutionism, to revert back to the sort of barbarism which was conquered by the Catholic missionaries of the First Millennium in Europe and of the Second Millennium in the Americas.

Thus it is, you see, that the doctrinal, liturgical, moral and pastoral revolutions of conciliarism have helped to worsen the state of the world-at-large as attacks on the patrimony of the Holy Faith by figures of Antichrist in clerical garb make it easier for the kindred spirits in civil governments and “culture” around the world to promote Antichrist’s agenda of statism and abject evil as the norms of personal existence.

It can never be stated forcefully enough, however, that the conciliar “popes” have been agents of revolutions against the Sacred Deposit of Faith and thus against God Himself and both the eternal and temporal good of souls.

Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII was well-prepared to lead the revolution into full public bloom after his “election” on October 28, 1958, nineteen days after the death of our last true Roman Pontiff thus far, Pope Pius XII, on October 9, 1958.

Although a poorly translated text of the Italian original of a book written by a lay contributor to L’Osservatore Romano, Franco Bellegrandi, and a member of the papal court in the 1960s has been available for about a decade now, it was only recently that I began to read the full text of Nikita Roncalli after a link to it had been sent to me by my longtime friend and colleague, Mr. Michael Cain, the publisher and editor of The Daily Catholic website. I thank Mr. Cain for doing so, acknowledging also the work of Mr. Hutton Gibson, who placed the translated text on his website.

As has been noted on this site before, most recently in Two For The Price Of One, part one, the mover and shaker of the conciliar revolution, Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, was under suspicion of Modernism early in his priestly career:

The appointment of professor Roncalli to the chair of Ecclesiastical History at the Roman Seminary was vetoed in 1912, having been indicated of “dubious orthodoxy.”

It must be remembered, at this juncture, the clamorous and forgotten episode of an intervention of the Holy Office against professor Don Roncalli that put an abrupt end to the teaching by the future John XXIII even at the Bergamo Seminary. It had been discovered that Roncalli, in defiance of the Encyclical “Pascendi” by his co-regional Pope Sarto, Pius X, not only acted as a modernist, but corresponded with the excommunicated priest Ernesto Buonaiuti. This priest and historian of the religions was amongst the major exponents of Modernism in Italy, and was excommunicated in 1926 for his progressive activity and his open insubordination to the ecclesiastical hierarchy. To get a precise idea of Buonaiuti, and of the ideas that he professed and advertised, it would suffice to go through the following letter written by the modernist priest, in October 1906, to the historian and French sociologist Albert Houtin, also a priest, who ended up abandoning the priesthood and the Church.

A known representative of Italian Modernism, just expelled by a decision of Pius X from the Collegio Apollinare, thus wrote to his French friend: “… Here, at the very center of Medieval theocracy, I wish to fulfill a work of tenacious corrosion… There are many of us friends, here in Rome, now, determined to operate in the critical field, to prepare the ultimate fall of the whole old carcass of Medieval orthodoxy. The trouble is that the laity does not favor us for now, as it ignores, nay, it tends to shift once again toward the Vatican in order to sustain the Monarchy. But I do hope that the example set by France, the very fatality of the historical evolution will soon also give to us an anti-clerical parliament and, with it, a radical ministry. Then our hour will have come.” The letter is self explanatory, and it is the most enlightened presentation of its author. Around such a rebel gathered a group of modernist priests that put so much effort into the propagation of their theories that Pius X believed it appropriate to condemn the movement with the Encyclical “Pascendi,” promulgated in 1907, which severely condemned Modernism. The same Pope set up in the Vatican a special section, the “Sodalitium Pianum,” into whose chair he placed monsignor Benigni, in order to single out and hit, one after the other, the suspects with severe sanctions. The group of the modernists was disrupted and dispersed. Buonaiuti, with his collaborator, Turchi, left for Ireland; the other priest followers, among whom Pioli, who left the habit, Rossi, who became an Evangelical pastor, Hagan, who retired in hermitic solitude, De Stefano, who also dropped the habit, Balducci and Perella who, shifted to the secular state, went underground.

It comes as no surprise that Roncalli would come into contact with such a champion of modernism. Evidently, the “Sodalitium Pianum” had been informed and had conveyed to the Holy Office a detailed denunciation. The conviction and immediate suspension fell on the large head of the teacher from Sotto il Monte, despite the cautious defense by the bishop. That denunciation, and the consequent intervention by the Holy Office, as was the custom, were archived in a special section of the Secret Vatican Archive. In the dusty shadow of that gigantic archive, among mountains of papers perfectly recorded and organized, they lay forgotten for nearly half a century. Until one afternoon, after office hours, a heavy, slightly shuffled footstep paced those arcades and those rooms in the half-light, and stood before a metal cabinet inside of which, so many years earlier, they had been locked up. The key turned in the lock and the doors were opened. Two large hands rummaged for some time through the numbered files, full of yellowed documents. The competence of the researcher in the matter of archives soon prevailed in that ocean of documents rigorously organized.


In his large right hand ornate with the “Anello Piscatorio” (Fisherman’s ring) stopped some old rustling papers. In the high stillness of the deserted archive John XXIII examined, for a time, smiling to himself, that ancient condemnation. He then shut the doors again and, with those papers in his hand, he returned to his apartment with the ermine trimmed Camauro (white fur-trimmed red bonnet associated with Medieval popes) lowered onto his eyes, while the shadows of the night descended upon the eleven-thousand deserted
rooms of the Vatican, watched by the unhurried, equal pacing of the Swiss Guards.

That night, unconsciously, John XXIII inaugurated, with that, his secret tampering in the Vatican Archives, that which would later become, with Paul VI, a pattern to the detriment of History: that of making compromising documents regarding the person of the Pontiff and his closest entourage vanish.

Having become Pope, Roncalli did not refrain from commenting, as was his style, on that misadventure of youth and would say, one day, in the course of an audience, “…For, as you can see, even a priest placed under “observation” by the Holy Office can, on occasion, become Pope!” Revealing, in the joke, his deep-rooted scorn toward the institutions of the traditional Church. (Nikita Roncalli.)

Perhaps you can see now why a bit of time was taken above to explain the explain the influences of the ideology of evolutionism upon the minds of Modernists such as the excommunicated Father Ernesto Buonaiuti, who believed in historical evolutionism and desired to eliminate the trappings of what he disparaged as Medieval “monarchy” in Holy Mother Church as Buonaiuti influenced Roncalli/John XXIII very directly and his disdain for ecclesiastical monarchy has been expressed, both symbolically and verbally, by Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis in the past five months since his “election” as the successor of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, the exponent of the philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned “hermeneutic of continuity.”

Roncalli/John XXIII’s scorn “toward the institutions of the traditional Church” has been shared by each of his five successors (Giovanni Montini/Paul The Sick, Albino Luciani/John Paul I, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis). Indeed, this scorn has been on full display in the words and actions of Bergoglio/Francis, starting on the very night of his “election,” Wednesday, March 13, 2013, as he refused to wear proper papal regalia and then asked for the prayers” of the people assembled in Piazza di Santo Pietro as he bowed his head. Far from being befuddled, as I thought at the time, Bergoglio/Francis showed us within a day that he knew exactly what he was doing as he is a Modernist Jesuit lay revolutionary to the very core of his being.

Franco Bellegrandi also documents the fact that the then Archbishop Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli was using his time as the Papal Nuncio in France to reconcile the Catholic Church with Judeo-Masonry, explaining that the corpulent Modernist from Bergamo, Italy, was fully aware of the Freemasonic membership of the French minister of the Knights of Malta:

Even in his [Roncalli's] new mission, success smiled at the priest from Sotto il Monte. He succeeds in his intent of not satisfying entirely the French government, without upsetting it too much. His home hosts meetings with unpredictable personalities, nurtures personal and frequent relations with exponents of the left, and makes friends with figures and ministers belonging to Freemasonry.

Of that French period is an incident, unknown to most, which raises for a moment the curtain on the alleged Roncalli membership in the Masonic sect. His most eminent highness, prince Chigi Albani della Rovere, then Great Master of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, had received in the Gran Magistero’s Rome office a letter from cardinal Canali, heavy as a massive boulder: Pius XII, protector of the Order, had just learned, with great pain, that the minister of the Order of Malta in Paris was a freemason. They hastened, in the Magistral palace of the Via dei Condotti, to rummage through the file of baron Marsaudon, recently appointed in place of count Pierredon, who had been retired. It was discovered, with a certain relief, that he had been made “Grand Cross of Magistral Grace” at the suggestion of his predecessor and, above all, appointed minister on recommendation by the nuncio in Paris, Roncalli.

The outcome of that first investigation was immediately reported to the Vatican, to cardinal Canali, who was heard crying:

”Poor Roncalli! I’m sorry I have to embarrass him and I hope that this would not cost him the cardinalitial galero…” The Vatican arranged in the strictest reserve that the Order send a trusted person to Paris at once, to carry out in depth the delicate discovery. The Great Magisterium was in an awkward situation. All three personages involved in the story had indeed to be treated with regard. The nuncio, for his precious contribution to the Order of Malta in the closing of certain business deals in Argentina; count Pierredon for his lengthy services, first at Bucharest, and then at Paris; Baron Marsaudon himself for his meritorious commitment in order to obtain the official recognition of the Order by the French government. After a careful and accurate selection was named “Magistral Visitor” a chaplain professed of the Order, monsignor Rossi Stockalper, who was also canonic of Santa Maria Maggiore and thus in Vatican’s hands. He left for Paris at once. He had been advised to begin his discovery with father Berteloot, of the Company of Jesus, and an expert in Masonic issues. The Jesuit, consulted in the strictest discretion, confirmed to him that baron Marsaudon not only was a Freemason, but “thirty-third level” of Masonry and life-member of the Council of the Great Lodge of the Scottish Rite. Monsignor Rossi Stockalper continued his tour. He learned very little from the archbishop of Paris monsignor Feltin, who sent him instead to his general vicar, monsignor Bohan, “who knew the baron more closely.” Here, for the envoy from Rome, was another surprise: the general vicar had pulled out of a safe and scattered over the table a series of incontrovertible documents, among which an issue of the “Journal Officiel de l’Etat francais,” published in Vichy during the (German) occupation, in which Yves Marie Marsaudon was indicated among the followers of Freemasonry; three or four copies of the Masonic magazine “Le Temple” containing a few of his articles, and an informative profile of the subject. No document existed relating to an abjuration. The Magistral Visitor, with his heart in pain, dragged on to 10, avenue President Wilson, residence of the nuncio. He asked Roncalli, tactfully, for circumstantial information about the mason-baron. The sturdy priest from Sotto il Monte, between a smile and a joke, sent the chaplain of the Order of Malta back to the secretary of the nunciature, monsignor Bruno Heim. This priest, today the “apostolic legate” in Great Britain, ended up startling the envoy from Rome, first with his clergy-man and the smoking pipe in his teeth, then with his amazing statements on Freemasonry, defined as “One of the last forces of social conservation in today’s world, and, therefore, a force of religious conservation,” and with an enthusiastic judgment on baron Marsaudon who had the merit of making the nunciature grasp the transcendent value of Freemasonry. Precisely for this his merit, the Nuncio of Paris, Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, had sustained and approved his appointment to minister of the Order of Malta in Paris. Monsignor Stockalper at that turn had remained dumbfounded, and received the ultimate blow when, protesting that Canon 2335 of the Canon Law calls for the excommunication for the affiliated to Freemasonry, he was told by his interlocutor, between a puff and another at the scented smoke of his big pipe, that “the nunciature of Paris was working in great secret to reconcile the Catholic Church with Freemasonry.” It was 1950! This episode seems to expose the connivance of Roncalli with Freemasonry. The post-conciliar Church will indeed reconcile with the secret sect. I wish to wrap up this subject, reporting a revelation made to me a while ago, by count Paolo Sella of Monteluce. This figure, an economist, politician, writer and journalist, who was a close friend of Umberto of Savoy, and who boasts a direct descent from the founder of the Italian Historical Right, senator Quintino Sella of Biella, shared with me, in the quiet of his Roman home on the slopes of Monte Mario, the evidence in his possession, of the assault by Freemasonry on the Catholic Church. I had found in his drawing room Vaticanist Gabriella di Montemayor, who had been the go-between for our encounter. Count Sella was reorganizing some papers on the low table in front of him. The sunset burst in from Monte Mario and gilded the shelves loaded with ancient volumes with their spine of parchment, and the reddish beams of the sun, filtering through the curtains barely moved by the evening breeze, enlivened the portraits of the ancestors watching severely from the walls that learned descendant of theirs, sitting in an armchair before me. Then the count, raising his face and staring at me, began to speak: “… In September 1958, about seven or eight days before the Conclave, I was at the Sanctuary of Orope, attending one of the usual dinners at Attilio Botto’s, a Biellese industrialist who fancied gathering around him competent from various branches, to discuss the different issues. That day had been invited [by] a character I knew as a high Masonic authority in contact with the Vatican. He told me, driving me home, that “…The next Pope would not be Siri, as it was murmured in some Roman circles, because he was too authoritarian a cardinal. They would elect a Pope of conciliation. The choice has already fallen on the patriarch of Venice Roncalli. “Chosen by whom?” I rejoined surprised. “By our Masonic representatives in the Conclave,” responded placidly my kind escort. And then it escaped me:

There are freemasons in the Conclave?” “Certainly,” was the reply, “the Church is in our hands.” I rejoined perplexed: “Who, then, is in charge in the Church?” After a brief pause, the voice of my escort uttered precisely: “No one can say where the upper echelons are. The echelons are occult.”(Nikita Roncalli.)

No to Giuseppe Siri.

Si to Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, who was trying as the Papal Nuncio to France to “reconcile” the irreconcilable, that is, Judeo-Masonry, with Catholicism in complete defiance of Holy Mother Church’s condemnations, including this one from Pope Leo XIII, contained in Custodi di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892:

Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)

Ah, it wasn’t only Judeo-Masonry with which Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII sought to make a happy “reconciliation.” He had even bigger fish to fry than that.

Yes, Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, caring not for Pope Pius XI’s specific condemnation, contained in Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937, of any cooperation with Communist regimes or Communists, used his last encyclical letter, Pacem in Terris, April 11, 1963, precisely to urge such collaboration, believing that Marxism had some “good” to offer mankind:

159. 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?

160. 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.[67] (Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, Pacem in Terris, April 11, 1963.)

Consider Pope Pius XI’s complete condemnation of such friendship with Marxism with Roncalli’s very thinly veiled and carefully phrased call for it, which is why Roncalli/John XXIII entered into the Metz Accord to prevent any criticism of Communism at the “Second” Vatican Council (see The Council of Metz and Red China: Still A Workshop For The New Ecclesiology):

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.)

Behold a man who was deceived, Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, who anointed as his successor as the head of the counterfeit church of conciliarism another deceived man and a deceiver in his own Modernist right, Giovanni Montini/Paul The Sick, who sold out a modern Hungarian martyr, albeit a “white martyr,” Josef Cardinal Mindszenty, the Primate of Hungary:

Unlike Roncalli, clear, genuine, stalwart in his revolutionary convictions, Montini would not commit himself. He can heap his future within himself, build it piece after piece, without giving away a hint that might reveal his future plans. He can keep rancor and benevolence at bay. Even those who know him well will say that he has an arid and manipulative temperament. And unloyal.

I can admit to have followed closely some of the Montinian “misdeeds.” One example for all: the betrayal of the Primate of Hungary. Cardinal Mindszenty has learned at his expense the two faces of Paul VI. And he was greatly hurt. But he stood tall against that betrayal with all his pride and dignity of prince of the Church and Primate of Hungary. In October 1974, at Vienna, I knelt down before that great cardinal. And I wanted to write in its entirety the story of how he was betrayed, by Giovanni Battista Montini (1).

So well has the archbishop of Milan [Montini] staked out his route, under the massive shadow of the priest from Sotto il Monte [Roncalli], that when his turn came to sit on the papal throne, all of the objectives prefixed outside the Vatican, are happily achieved. The overruling of the excommunication of freemasonry, the rapprochement with the Jewish world, the acceptance of Marxism, the involvement of Christianity with Protestantism, the de-spiritualization of Christianity.

No pope “elected by the Holy Spirit” would have succeeded, in such a few years, as it happened with Roncalli and Montini, to transform the bi-millennial face of the Church and upturn the equilibriums of the world, in accordance with the design of occult forces, interested in this colossal and dramatic revolution. Montini knew that the points of that program had been firmly established. That is why, when upon John XXIII’s death he arrives in the Vatican and enters the Conclave, he will carry in his suitcase a well-pressed, elegant papal habit made by the most prestigious tailor in Rome. (Nikita Roncalli.)

Here is another account of Paul The Sick‘s betrayal of Joseph Cardinal Mindszenty:

The Prisoner, as it happened, was wrapped too soon because Mindszenty’s story, which had seemed to be fini, had scarcely begun. By 1956 Stalin was dead and Khrushchev was making some unusual noises. In October the Hungarians rose in revolt. Mindszenty had no clue of what was happening on the street; his guards told him that the rabble outside the prison was shouting for his blood. A few days later he was released and indeed a mob of locals set upon him. But instead of ripping his flesh they grabbed at the liberated hero to kiss his clothes. When he returned to Budapest the deposed Reds quivered over this ghost who would not stay buried, but in a radio broadcast he counseled against revenge. The Soviets were not so forgiving, and tanks rumbled to crush this unpleasant incident. A marked man, Mindszenty sought asylum in the American embassy as his last resort. Now a second long Purgatory had begun. Pius spoke out repeatedly against this latest example of Soviet terror but the West, heedless of its own liberation rhetoric, was deaf.

When The Prisoner was released, the Church was still the implacable foe of communism. Frail Pius stood as a Colossus against both right and left totalitarianism. When Pius departed this world there ensued a moral void in the Vatican that has never been filled. By the early 1960s both the Western governments and the Novus Ordo popes decided that accommodation with the Communists was preferable to the archaic notions of Pius and Mindszenty. John XXIII and successor Paul VI welcomed a breath of fresh air into the Church, and that odor included cooperation with the Reds. The new Ostpolitik, managed by Paul’s Secretary of State Agostino Casaroli, hadn’t room for Christian warriors of Mindszenty’s stamp. The position of the Hungarian government was strengthened when Casaroli entered negotiations with the appalling regime of Janos Kadar. As the Cold War thawed, the freeze was put on Mindszenty. The American government made it understood that he was no longer welcome at the embassy. Worse still, Paul sent a functionary to persuade Mindszenty to leave, but only after signing a document full of stipulations that favored the Reds and essentially blaming himself for his ordeal. The confession that the Communists could not torture out of him was being forced on him by the Pope!

Driven from his native land against his wishes, Mindszenty celebrated Mass in Rome with Paul on October 23, 1971. The Pope told him, “You are and remain archbishop of Esztergom and primate of Hungary.” It was the Judas kiss. For two years Mindszenty traveled, a living testament to truth, a man who had been scourged, humiliated, imprisoned and finally banished for the Church’s sake. In the fall of 1973, as he prepared to publish his Memoirs, revealing the entire story to the world, he suffered the final betrayal. Paul, fearful that the truth would upset the new spirit of coexistence with the Marxists, “asked” Mindszenty to resign his office. When Mindszenty refused, Paul declared his See vacant, handing the Communists a smashing victory.

If Mindszenty’s story is that of the rise and fall of the West’s resistance to communism it is also the chronicle of Catholicism’s self-emasculation. In the 1950s a man such as Mindszenty could be portrayed as a hero of Western culture even though both American and English history is rife with hatred toward the Church. When the political mood changed to one of coexistence and detente rather than containment, Mindszenty became an albatross to the appeasers and so the Pilates of government were desperate to wash their hands of him. Still, politicians are not expected to act on principle, and therefore the Church’s role in Mindszenty’s agony is far more damning.

Since movies, for good or ill, have a pervasive influence on American culture, perhaps a serious film that told Mindszenty’s whole story could have some effect on the somnolent Catholics in the West. Guilty of Treason and The Prisoner are artifacts of their day. An updated film that follows the prelate through his embassy exile and his pathetic end would be a heart-wrenching drama. But knowing what we know now, the Communists, despicable as they are, would no longer be the primary villains. (Shooting the Cardinal: Film and Betrayal in the Mindszenty Case)

According to Franco Bellegrandi, who met with Cardinal Mindszenty in Vienna, Austria, on October 18, 1974, His Eminence was very direct as to where the true Church was located in this time of apostasy and betrayal:

Then, commenting on the encyclical “Pacem in Terris,” the Russian columnist wrote that John XXIII“…puts forward for the first time in an official document the issue of a possible cooperation between Catholics and non-Catholics toward the achievement of a scope that is of interest to all humanity. He writes explicitly that the reconciliation, which only yesterday was or seemed impossible, is necessary today or could become so tomorrow. . .

Certainly the desired “reconciliation” has turned out to be unexpectedly advantageous to the Marxists. It has alienated, on the other hand, a considerable mass of believers who no longer recognize their own Church in the post-Conciliar Church. I carry in my memory and in my heart the words spoken to me by Cardinal Mindszenty in Vienna on October 18, 1974. I had asked the Primate of Hungary, twice nailed onto the cross of his martyrdom, first by the fierce fury of the Marxist bailiffs, subsequently by the cold callousness of Papa Montini: “Which is the True Church, that official one that now, in the world, fraternizes with Marxist atheism, or else the one abandoned by Rome because it remained faithful to Tradition.” The old Magyar bishop had directly replied to me, “The one abandoned by Rome.” (Nikita Roncalli.)

When, then, do so many priests and presbyters who remain attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism seek to assuage themselves with self-satisfied expressions, sometimes made on their own websites and blogs for all the world to see, of how “obedient” they have been to their superiors?

Franco Bellegrandi had the same question and minced no words about their cowardly careerism:

In four years the Vatican II Ecumenical Council reached and easily surpassed its three fundamental objectives: the Liturgical reform in the Protestant sense, the dialogue with the representatives of Dialectic and Historical Materialism, and the yielding on Religious Freedom in a Masonic key.

With meditated impartiality, we must give Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli credit for his “technically” flawless job. The liquidation in less than five years of two thousand years of history. What is puzzling, is the guilty blind acceptance with which most of the clergy has suffered, when not an active participant, the action of John XXIII first, and Paul VI’s afterwards, in the liquidation of the ancient structure of the Church.

I know personally that many bishops were and are against it. All these gentlemen, who hold at heart the fate of the Church, shared with their close relations their dissent for the action of the Council. Inconceivably, however, none of them has voiced their concern, taking a stand. They have hidden behind the all too easy alibi of obedience. But what obedience? when the very Council which they, with their guilty silence sustained, dismantled the import of that vain term, hitting and annihilating, day after day, hierarchy and authority, in the name of a “collegiality” elevated to system? They feared and do fear the loss of their status and their prebends, and thus tighten their lips and ignore that two thousand years of Church are crying out their treason. One would holler in the livid faces of these pusillanimous or opportunist parades, the words of St. Thomas Aquinas, clear and resounding as trumpet’s blares: “Illa virtus dicitur naturaliter prior quam obedientia, UT PATET DE FIDE” [(If there be any virtue, whose object is prior to the precept) That virtue is said to be naturally prior to obedience. AS IS EVIDENT CONCERNING FAITH.] (Summa Theologica 11-11 question 104 art. 3); “Quandoque praecepta praelatorum sunt contra Deum. Ergo non in omnibus, praelatis est obediendum” [Whenever the commands of prelates are against God. Therefore not in all things must prelates be obeyed.] (11-11 question 104 art. 5) and “Praelati sunt imitandi non omnibus, sed in his, quae sunt secundum regulam Christi” [Prelates are not to be copied in all matters. But in these which are according to the prescription of Christ.] (Comment on the Epistle of St. Paul 2 to the Tess. 3,14).

But they preferred the comfortable unexceptionable obedience, which is a flagrant disobedience to their duty of priests, of spreading and defending the Faith. And they did, and do, keep silent. … The Conciliar reforms have contributed to demolish the Church, to ruin priesthood, to destroy the sacrifice and the sacraments, to wipe out religious life, to spread Naturalistic and Teilhardian teachings in the universities, in the seminars, in the catechesis, teachings derived from Liberalism and Protestantism, so many times condemned by the Supreme Magisterium of the Church. (Nikita Roncalli.)

It is only by the graces won for us by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on the wood of the Holy Cross that are sent to us through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, that those of us who have embraced the truth about the state of the Church Militant on the face of this earth in this time of apostasy and betrayal have done so and can abide in it without wavering, without compromise and without abandoning our own Via Dolorosa for the sake of the “fellowship” and respect of estranged family members, friends, benefactors, colleagues or neighbors. This is why we must keep ever close to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, especially, if possible, by means of Eucharistic piety and by praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.

Saint John Eudes, whose feast was celebrated yesterday, Monday, August 19, 2013, helped to establish devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus some thirty years before the revelations that Our Lord gave to Sister Margaret Mary Alacoque. He also promoted devotion to the Holy Heart of Mary. His own priestly heart was such that he stressed the importance of priests to have the very Hearts of Jesus and Mary in the confessional, exhorting sinners to amend their lives, to be sure, but doing so with an understanding of the frailties of fallen human nature and the manner in which Our Lord wants His Mercy to be extended to the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross. Saint John Eudes will help us to trust in the tender Mercies of the Hearts of Jesus and Mary during these times of apostasy and betrayal, especially as we pray the Holy Rosary to which he was so personally devoted.

Perhaps we can, in honor of Saint John Eudes, recite this salutation of his to Our Lady, who is meant to reign as the Queen of all men and all nations here on earth:

Hail Mary! Daughter of God the Father.

Hail Mary! Mother of God the Son.

Hail Mary! Spouse of God the Holy Ghost.

Hail Mary! Temple of the Most Blessed Trinity.

Hail Mary! Pure Lily of the Effulgent Trinity. God.

Hail Mary!! Celestial Rose of the ineffable Love of God.

Hail Mary! Virgin pure and humble, of whom the King of Heaven willed to be born and with thy milk to be nourished.

Hail Mary! Virgin of Virgins.

Hail Mary! Queen of Martyrs, whose soul a sword transfixed.

Hail Mary! Lady most blessed: Unto whom all power in Heaven and earth is given.

Hail Mary! My Queen and my Mother! My Life, my sweetness and my Hope.

Hail Mary! Mother most Amiable.

Hail Mary! Mother most Admirable.

Hail Mary! Mother of Divine Love.

Hail Mary! IMMACULATE! Conceived without sin!

Hail Mary Full of Grace. The Lord is with Thee! Blessed art Thou amongst Women and Blessed is the Fruit of Thy Womb, Jesus!

Blessed be thy Spouse, St. Joseph.

Blessed be thy Father, St. Joachim.

Blessed be thy Mother, St. Anne.

Blessed be thy Guardian, St. John.

Blessed be thy Holy Angel, St. Gabriel.

Glory be to God the Father, who chose thee.

Glory be to God the Son, who loved thee.

Glory be to God the Holy Ghost, who espoused thee.

O Glorious Virgin Mary, may all men love and praise thee.

Holy Mary, Mother of God! Pray for us and bless us, now, and at death in the Name of Jesus, thy Divine Son

Today, Tuesday, August 20, 2013, is the Feast of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, the great devotee of Our Lady’s who was also a firm opponent of heresy, something that should distinguish the life of all who call themselves truly devoted, no less consecrated to, the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Unlike those who remain “obedient” to men who are not officials of the Catholic Church because they have expelled themselves from her maternal bosom by virtue of adhering to and daring to express publicly one condemned proposition after another, Saint Bernard of Clairvaux taught us to eschew human respect in order to be attached to love of God alone.

Blessed Humbeline, the sister of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, explained to her husband Guy, who was about to give her permission to enter the religious life, how we must love God completely in this passing vale of tears:

“Guy, dear,” she pressed, “it seems incredible. I know; but that is because we think so superficially. Now tell me: Were you not more ready and without fear to face your uncle after you had done some heroic deed in battle, after you had risked your life and sacrificed safety than you were after some escapade or boyish prank? Bring the principle to the touchstone of everyday life and you’ll see its force. When did you face your uncle most gladly?”

“After I had sacrificed, as you say.” came the thoughtful reply. “That is certainly true in the case of any knight.”

“Then don’t you see the parallel?”

“I do, Humbeline; more clearly than ever before. And I see that I have sacrificed very little for God. I can believe that religious souls such as Elizabeth de Forez and your brothers, if not completely without fear, are certainly more ready to face God than any of us in the world. It is most reasonable.”

“And you have touched the real reason, Guy. It is giving to God! I am growing more convinced that life has only one purpose: that God gave us everything simply that we might freely give everything back to Him again. Daddy’s death at Clairvaux last year taught me that most forcefully. I saw then that happiness here and hereafter is to be found in God alone.”

“Do you mean that the world should be one large monastery?”

“Never!–But I do mean that everyone in the world should live as the inmates of the monastery; that is, fully God-conscious, God-centered, God-absorbed! My sister-in-law [Elizabeth de Forez, whom Saint Bernard convinced to enter religious life] has more happiness here than any hundred society women, and she is more sure of happiness hereafter than ay thousand of them. And why? Because she has made the total sacrifice and the unconditional surrender. She has given her all!” (Father M. Raymond, O.C.S.O., The Family That Overtook Christ: The Amazing Story of the Family of Bernard of Clairvaux, Boston, Massachusetts: Saint Paul Books and Media, 1986, pp. 278-279.)

As noted above, we need the help of Our Lady, to whom Saint Bernard of Clairvaux was so devoted, all times in order to surrender ourselves to God as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through His Catholic Church:

In dangers, in doubts, in difficulties, think of Mary, call upon Mary. Let not her name depart from your lips, never suffer it to leave your heart. And that you may more surely obtain the assistance of her prayer, neglect not to walk in her footsteps. With her for guide, you shall never go astray; while invoking her, you shall never lose heart; so long as she is in your mind, you are safe from deception; while she holds your hand, you cannot fall; under her protection you have nothing to fear; if she walks before you, you shall not grow weary; if she shows you favor, you shall reach the goal.

Let us suffer well and with gratitude and with joy in this time of apostasy and betrayal as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. Heaven awaits us if we walk our own little Via Dolorosa without complaint

Isn’t the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven worth bearing with the sufferings of the present time?

Isn’t it time to pray a Rosary now?

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

In Search of Angelo Roncalli’s “Miracle”

As has been noted in previous articles, including Two For The Price Of One, part oneFrancis: The Latest In A Long Line Of Ecclesiastical Tyrants and Defect of Form? No, Defection from the Holy Faith, Angelo Roncalli, the first in the line of the six false claimants to the Throne of Saint Peter since the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958, was a Modernist to the very substantial core of his being. Yet it will be that a man who was a Modernist and who threw open wide the “doors” of what he believed to be the Catholic Church to the world, which is the devil’s domain, and drove millions upon millions of Catholics out of the Faith into the waiting arms of false religious sects or into rank unbelief is going to be “canonized” by Jorge Mario Bergoglio in but thirty-five days.

Roncalli/John XXIII is going to be “canonized” despite the fact the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s saint factory, the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints, could not even find a pseudo-miracle to attribute to his intercession. Thus it is that I have taken it upon myself to go in search of Angelo Roncalli’s “miracle” even though I have plenty else to do with my time.

Where to start such a search?

Well, let’s take a look at the statistics showing the quantitative difference between the time after the end of the “Second” Vatican Council and the present. That should give us a fairly good indication of any miraculous developments:

Priests: 1945 = 38,451  1950 = 42,970  1955 = 46,970  1960 = 53,796  1965 = 58,000

Priests: 2013 = 38,800  Diocesan Priests = 26,500 and  Religious = 12,300

Ordinations to the Priesthood: 1965  =  994

Ordinations: 2013  =  511

Seminarians: 1965  =  49,000  Graduate level: = 8325

Graduate level Seminarians: 2013  = 3694

Religious Sisters in the whole world 1973  = 1 million.  In 2013  =  721,935.

Parishes: 1965  =  17,637

Parishes: 2013  =  17,413

Mass Attendance in 1965: 65 % of Catholics attended Sunday Mass

2013, Only 24 % of Catholics attend Sunday Mass.

Students in 1965 at 8414 elementary schools = 2.6 million.

Students in 2013 at 5636 elementary schools = 1.5 million. (TThe Tale of the Tape: 1965-2013.)

This is truly extraordinary.

Could it count as a “miracle” for the “canonization” of Angelo Roncalli/John XIII?

Well, “miracle would be the wrong word. A more apt description of what Roncalli’s “opening to the world” hath wrought can be found in the Book of Exodus:

[6] And Moses and Aaron did as the Lord had commanded: so did they. [7] And Moses was eighty years old, and Aaron eighty-three, when they spoke to Pharao. [8] And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron: [9] When Pharao shall say to you, shew signs: thou shalt say to Aaron: Take thy rod, and cast it down before Pharao, and it shall be turned into a serpent. [10] So Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharao, and did as the Lord had commanded. And Aaron took the rod before Pharao, and his servants, and it was turned into a serpent.

[11]And Pharao called the wise men and the magicians: and they also by Egyptian enchantments and certain secrets did in like manner.[12] And they every one cast down their rods, and they were turned into serpents  (Exodus 7: 6-12.)

Those who are in league with the adversary can perform various marvels now and again. It is certainly a marvel that Angelo Roncalli, acting as “Pope John XXIII” started a process that has resulted in the the profanation of Sacred Worship, the emptying and closing of Catholic parishes, a massive loss of belief in the Real Presence of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour in the Most Blessed Sacrament (not that He is in the tabernacles of conciliar churches, of course),  and a headlong embrace of Catholics into the world, forgetting even the relaxed standards of modesty in attire that were approved by the American bishops in the 1930s.

Gone over the course of time was any real thought of condemning morally objectionable or blasphemous motion pictures, television programs, books, newspapers or magazines.

Gone over the course of time was any restraint of speech and personal conduct.

Gone over the course of time was any concept of the horror of personal sin.

Gone over the course of time was any belief in the miracles performed by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Gone over the course of time was even a modicum of the sensus Catholicus to be found in the souls of those who had been born in the decades after the conclusion of the “Second” Vatican Council on December 8, 1965, as many of those born decades before Roncalli/John XXIII convoked the “Second” Vatican Council on January 25, 1959, the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul, permitted their own sense of the Catholic Faith to be swept out of their souls.

Perhaps one of the greatest “miracles” for which Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII’s “opening to the world” is responsible is the fact that very few Catholics anywhere in the world, including, sad to say, some traditionally-minded Catholics in the conciliar structures who have made their own compromises with the world (women wearing masculine attire, permitting their children to listen to “rock” music and immoral videos, choosing not to seek the conversion of relatives immersed in sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, etc.), think anything is scandalous in the “performance,” if you want to call it that, of an Italian Ursuline religious sister in the conciliar structures, Sister Cristina, on an Italian television “talent” show. (Whatever happened to the Ted Mack Amateur Hour or Arthur Godfrey’s Talent Scouts?)

Although Sister Cristina’s by-now infamous “performance” has been well-chronicled at the Novus Ordo Watch Wire (see Suor Christina Scandal), the plain fact of the matter is that scandal of this type is endemic within the conciliar structures. Endemic. That is, it permeates the entirety of the conciliar ethos. Scandal of the sort given by Sister Cristina who performed to the absolute delight of her parents and a group of older Ursuline sisters as they took in the spectacle that was “judged” by creatures who looked like they came straight out of the devil’s makeup room, is given all the time in the conciliar world.

Most Catholics have become so accustomed to the “mainstreaming” of the horror of “rock and roll” “music that my late parents told me in 1955 was evil, something I accepted as true and spoke about in high school ten years later, not exactly endearing me to many of my peers; no, it’s never been about popularity), in the mainslime media that have thought nothing of its introduction and its institutionalization in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service. (For a review of how “rock music” was incorporated into the “warm-up” for Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s appearance at a “youth rally” at Saint Joseph’s Seminary in the Dunwoodie section of the City of Yonkers, New York, on Saturday, April 19, 2008, please see No Room for Mary Immaculate Queen at Saint Joseph’s Seminary. That article contains a reference to “Father” Stan Fortuna’s performance. There is also a lengthy passage from Mr. Michael Matt’s excellent critique of the horrors of “rock music,” Gods of Wasteland.)

After all, who wants to be more Catholic than the “pope,” who has presided over “rock” Masses as part of the “new evangelization”?

The man who will be “canonized” along with Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, specifically wanted “innovations” such as “rock music” inserted his extravaganza liturgies during his endless world travels. This is attested to by one of Annibale Bugnini’s most trusted deputies, “Archbishop” Piero Marini, who was the “Polish Pope’s” master of ceremonies between 1987 and the time he died on April 1 or 2, 2005 (depending upon whether the Vatican’s official line of the latter date is to believed), has written very specifically that Wojtyla/John Paul II wanted a “new liturgy” for every single of his trips:

Rodari reminds of the neo-Conservative theory, where the then Master of Ceremonies, Marini, is supposed to have incited a “spectacle coterminous with the Papal Liturgies” against the will of Pope John Paul II.

This justification is energetically contradicted by Archbishop Marini in his book.

The Conciliar Blessed had encouraged him to insert more cultic heather [heathen?] practices in the Papal Masses — wrote Msgr Marini.

John Paul II wanted to break through the “rigor” of Papal Masses.

Archbishop Marini reports that John Paul II wanted a “new Liturgy for every trip“.

The Conciliar Blessed is said to have turned to Msgr Marini saying with praise: “beautiful, beautiful.” (John Paul II the Not-So-Great Wanted Liturgical Innovation.)

Wojtyla/John Paul II presided over every kind of liturgical abomination imaginable, providing cover for all his “bishops” and priests/presbyters at the “retail level” to innovate all on their accord in perfect accord with the provisions found in Paragraphs 390-399 of the General Instruction to the Roman Missal.

Without taking anything away from the scandalous exhibition displayed by Suor Cristina or minimizing in any way the diabolical “hook em horns” salute to the devil, it must be remembered that Roncalli/John XXIII opened the windows to the world that made possible such travesties.

It must be remembered that Roncalli/John XXIII “simplified” the Immemorial Mass of Tradition in 1960 and broke the Roman Canon a year after by inserting the name of Saint Joseph therein. He suppressed the feasts of ten saints, changed the names of four other feast days and downgraded the feasts of ten other saints. (For more information, please see John XXIII Mass Changes.) It was Roncalli/John XXIII who made the praying of the Prayers after Low Mass optional, helping to further accustom priests and lay Catholics to the “options” that his anointed successor, Giovanni Montini/Paul VI, desired to be incorporated into the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service.

Yes, the fact that Suor Cristina’s “act” can be accepted as nothing extraordinary among those who are attached to the “ordinary” form of the “one Roman Rite” in the counterfeit church of conciliarism can be laid at the doorsteps of the corpulent Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII’s “opening wide” the doors of what he thought was the Catholic Church to the world. Behold the results. (I had to sit through a so-called “Mass of Christian Burial” in September of 1982 that featured “hard rock,” heavy-metal noise, to which the presider, who was in my acquaintance at the time and, I found out a few nights ago, died in 2006, said, “Wow!” as he applauded. Suor Cristina? Certainly scandalous. Tragically scandalous. Scandal, though, is the name of the game in the world of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service.)

Another possible “miracle” that could be attributed to Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII is his starting the process that led to the “reevaluation” of what is said to be the Catholic Church’s relationship to “the faith of Israel.” 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, that 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.)

One of the late Joseph “Cardinal” Bernardin’s acolytes, “Archbishop” Joseph Fiorenza, the retired conciliar  “archbishop” of Galveston-Houston, Texas, wrote the following about this passage in Nostra Aetate:

Nostra Aetate implicitly acknowledged that Israel remains in a covenant with God, and later Pope John Paul II made it explicit that Jews are “the people of God of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God.” While Nostra Aetate did not mention Christian anti-Semitism or the Holocaust, Pope John Paul was explicit in saying that the horrors of the Shoah must lead Christians to repentance: “For Christians, the heavy burden of guilt for the murder of Jewish people in the Shoah must be an enduring call to repentance.

Sometimes beneath the surface of interfaith dialogue, there is the fear that it will lead to a “watering down” of faith in order to achieve harmony, and the result is a form of syncretism which is unfaithful to authentic Judaism or authentic Christianity. True, interfaith dialogue must be based on fidelity to the different faith traditions, which will avoid any assimilation or melting the different traditions. True, faithful dialogue will lead to a greater understanding of each other’s faith beliefs and respectful acknowledgment of the differences.

Interfaith dialogue and cooperation has led to important collaboration on common societal problems such as homelessness, reform of the criminal justice, immigration reform and accessible health care for all. In the process of these joint efforts, we have come to a better understanding of our own traditions and to better insights into each other’s beliefs and manner of governance.  (See Joseph Fiorenza, “I can truly say there are no plans or desire to seek Jewish conversion,” says Joseph A. Fiorenza, Archbishop Emeritus, Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston at Museum dedication,” October 28, 2009, as found at Catholic Citizens.)

Following in the footsteps of Roncalli, Montini, Wojtyla and Ratzinger, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has made it abundantly clear that the Old Covenant has “never been revoked,” something that is a heretical proposition, implying that all efforts to convert the Jews has been based on a false interpretation of the Gospel of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Who said:

[44]But Jesus cried, and said: He that believeth in me, doth not believe in me, but in him that sent me.[45] And he that seeth me, seeth him that sent me.

[46] I am come a light into the world; that whosoever believeth in me, may not remain in darkness. [47] And if any man hear my words, and keep them not, I do not judge him: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. [48] He that despiseth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him; the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. [49] For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father who sent me, he gave me commandment what I should say, and what I should speak. [50] And I know that his commandment is life everlasting. The things therefore that I speak, even as the Father said unto me, so do I speak. (John 12: 44-50.)

Just as aside to “Archbishop” Fiorenza, the crimes of the Third Reich were the responsibility of racialists who hated the Catholic Faith and arrested and killed hundreds of priests in Germany and in the countries its forces invaded and occupied during World War II (see Meet Some Catholics Truly Worth Admiring, part one and Meet Some Catholics Truly Worth Admiring, part two).

The mythology of the “greatest crimes ever committed” (the crimes committed by Josef Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung were far greater in number) has been used by the agents of Zionism to load down the likes of the conciliar revolutionaries with such “guilt” over the crimes of devil-worshiping perverts so that they would “change” what is immutable: the simple fact that the Old Covenant God made with Moses was superseded by the New and Eternal Covenant that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ instituted at the Last Supper on Maundy Thursday and consummated by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday.

Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII thus started the process that would lead to Nostra Aetate and to Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II’s November 17, 1980, declaration that the Old Covenant has never been revoked, a declaration that was ratified on numerous occasions by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and, of course, by Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, especially in Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013. Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII thus made the following reiteration by Pope Pius XII of Catholic teaching on the invalidity of the Old Covenant disappear down into what can be called the Roncallian memory hole:

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.)

The Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, cannot contradict Himself. One either sees this or he does not. There is no “hermeneutic of continuity” in the conciliar teaching on the Jews whatsoever.

Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII thus made it possible for a “purification of memory,” a phrase first invoked by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II in his infamous Day for pardon, March 12, 2000, “homily,” to erase even the institutional memory of the Sisters of Our Lady of Sion that were founded by the brother of Father Marie-Alphonse, Ratisbonne Father Theodore Ratisbonne, to minister to Jewish converts in France before expanding its mission to Palestine to pray in reparation for the sins of the Jews and to seek their conversion.

 Look at how far the contemporary Daughters of Sion have gone to sanitize the history of Father Marie-Alphonse Ratisbonne’s rmiraculous vision of Our Lady as she appears on the Miraculous Medal that he, a Catholic-hating Jew, wore on a dare from a Catholic friend:

He received a discernment sign to do so, when on January 20, 1842, his youngest brother, Alphonse, had an experience of Mary which he simply called “light”. Within 12 days, Alphonse was baptised and he too became a priest. Both brothers shared a vision to journey by the light of the Word of God and Mary. (Sisters of Our Lady of Sion: Our Roots.  My thanks to Mr. Frank Rega, the author of many books, including Saint Francis of Assisi and the Conversion of the Muslims, for sending this link to me late last evening.)

Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII thus started the “miraculous” process by which truly miraculous events could be rendered devoid of their supernatural origins as they were deconstructed by Modernists into nothing other than “interior visions” or outright fantasies. (See The Sisters of Sion for one such exercise, written by a man who referred to the “seismic change” in the teaching about the “enduring validity” of the Old Covenant by the conciliar church. Mr. Rega sent me this link as well.)

For the record, however, here is Father Marie-Alphonse Ratisbonne’s own account of his miraculous conversion at the hands of Our Lady as he saw her appear to him in the Church of San Andrea delle Fratte, January 20, 1842:

“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.)

I do hope that one of you good readers out there in cyberspace will send this to the Sisters of Our Lady of Sion and to give them this message from me: your misrepresentation of the true history of the conversion of Father Marie-Alphonse Ratisbonne is reprehensible and beneath contempt. It is shameful. Are you saying that Father Marie-Alphonse Ratisbonne was deluded? Are you saying that Pope Pius IX was wrong to give him permission to establish a mission in Palestine to seek the conversion of the Jews? Are you saying that Saint Peter, the first pope, was wrong to have sought the conversion of the Jews? Are you saying that Our Lord Himself was wrong to seek the conversion of Saul of Tarsus?

Alas, such are the ways in the false church founded the devil’s apostle, Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII that even the facts of history must be distorted, misrepresented and made to disappear from all human consciousness. This is not what Catholics do. This is what revolutionaries do. Another “miracle” from the “incorrupt” Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII.

Well, even the myth of the “incorrupt” body of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, which was mummified at his own specific request, has been exploded by the conciliar Vatican after years of letting Catholics attached to their false structures believe, at least by omission of the telling the truth, in the myth. Although I had intended last evening to use other sources to prove the fact of the mummifying of Roncalli/John XXIII’s body, a story I found on the New York Post website I found this afternoon provides all of the facts one needs to have.

Here is an excerpt from that New York Post story:

The team’s most important task was Pope John XXIII. The pope, popular for his jovial nature, was considered pivotal because of his convening of the Second Vatican Council in 1962, which modernized the mass, bringing in contemporary music and local languages instead of Latin.

After his death, he was credited for curing an Italian nun, who prayed to him when she developed a stomach tumor. Her healing, with no medical explanation, was his first miracle.

In 2000, Pope John Paul II had him exhumed to be declared “blessed,” part of the progression to sainthood. The airtight coffin had left him virtually undisturbed, and the embalming team wanted to keep it that way.

After the pope’s internal organs were removed and analyzed, the body was placed in a stainless-steel tub for several weeks in a solution of formalin and alcohol, then neutralized for several weeks.

His body then undertook a series of baths in assorted solutions for months at a time, including various mixtures of ethanol, methanol, phenol, camphor, nitrobenzene, turpentine and benzoic acid.

Finally the body was bandaged in linen cloths saturated with a solution of mercury bichloride and ethanol. Then a second team ensconced him with wax on his face and hands. The entire process took about a year.

The Church decided not to rebury Pope John XXIII, instead putting him on display for pilgrims. More than 25,000 people visit St. Peter’s Basilica every day, and many faithful still believe the incorrupt state of his body is a miracle.

The Congregation for the Causes of Saints, a legal body inside the Vatican that analyzes witness accounts and oversees the legal measures required for sainthood, failed to recognize the pope’s bodily condition as a miracle — perhaps because the airtight container does not count as an act of God.

But Pope Francis waived the second miracle requirement, believing that John’s good works were reason enough. (Making of a Saint: the Vatican’s Deadly Quest to Preserve John XXIII.)

Good works?

Among those “good works” is that all but one person on the original team who worked on preserving Roncalli’s remains–and the relics of genuine saints–is still alive, the rest having died of cancer after being exposed to the chemicals they used to “bathe” his body nearly forty years after his death:

The embalming team risked their own lives to treat the dead.

Shockingly, there is only one survivor from the original team, the others having died of various tumors and cancers, likely side effects of the toxic chemicals expended during their work. Nobody is currently willing to assume their task due to the peril.

The team’s last job was performed in 2008, preparing the body of Pier Giorgio Frassati, an Italian senator and benefactor for various charities. There are a number of boys’ homes named after him in Australia, so Pope Benedict XVI wanted the body transported to Sydney during his visit there for World Youth Day.

But no other pope besides Pope John XXIII has been mummified. Before his death in 2005, Pope John Paul II made the decision not to have his body chemically treated and was buried as popes have been since the 1960s — left with all his organs and placed inside a vacuumed casket and rubbed with formalin. (Making of a Saint: the Vatican’s Deadly Quest to Preserve John XXIII.)

That’s a high price to pay for keeping an utter apostate’s dead body appear incorrupt so that it could be venerated by the duped faithful in the very spot in the Basilica of Saint Peter where the authentically incorrupt body of Saint Josaphat, who was martyred, for his efforts to convert the Orthodox on September 12, 1623, had lain prior to be move to make way for the artificially preserved body of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII.

Missing from the New York Post story was the more thorough documentation of how Roncalli instructed his personal physician to preserve his remains as found in an article by Dr. Martin Therese Horvat:

John XXIII had chosen Professor Valdoni as his personal doctor, and the latter was assisted by Professor Mazzoni. These two doctors had heard about the discovery of a young colleague, Dr. Gennaro Goglia, assistant Professor at the Institute of Anatomy of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of the Sacred Heart in Rome. Goglia had discovered a system to keep cadavers incorrupt. The two doctors of the Pope contacted the young scientist, and when the cancer of the stomach reduced John XXIII to his final stage, they asked Goglia to be ready to apply his invention on the Pope after his death. The two doctors had already spoken with John XXIII on the matter, and the latter had given them a written document leaving them in charge of preserving his mortal remains.

Therefore, as soon as he died on the evening of June 3, 1963, Goglia was contacted and brought to the Vatican. In the Papal quarters, he set up next to the cadaver a tripod that held a plastic bottle containing ten liters of his liquid preservative. He then began the process of injecting this liquid with a tube and needle into the body of John XXIII. It was a long procedure, crowned with success. Those present during the proceedings in addition to Goglia were Prof. Mazzoni and two valets of John XXIII, the Gusso brothers. Dr. Goglia provided these details to Famiglia Cristiana in the interview. Until then, the whole operation had been kept rigorously secret.

I would like to let the reader read for himself the end of the testimony of the doctor, who today is age 78. Here are his words:

“We put the bottle containing the liquid on the tripod. We made a small cut in the right wrist and inserted the needle there. I was afraid that the blood would exit through the tube or that the liquid could cause the skin to rupture …. At 5 a.m. on June 4 the operation ended. The liquid had reached all the capillaries, blocking the process of decomposition. We then injected some liters of the liquid into the Pope’s stomach, destroyed by cancer, in order to kill the bacteria there.”

Here is the explanation. The incorrupt body of John XXIII is due to a scientific achievement, not to a miracle that would confirm the sanctity of Angelo Roncalli. If the fact of a body remaining incorrupt would itself reveal sanctity, then the Pharaohs of Egypt that were mummified should be considered saints. (An Incorrupt Pope and the Pharaohs.)

Obviously, Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII was no “pope” at all. His “miracles” and “good work” are nothing other than proofs of his apostasy, thus attesting to the fact that he could not be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter.

Yet it is that he is being “canonized” by Jorge Mario Bergoglio in but five weeks from this very day, March 23, 2014, the Third Sunday of Lent, precisely because he was a follower of such Modernists as Ernesto Buonaiuti, with whom Father Roncalli corresponded after his excommunication for Modernism:

he appointment of professor Roncalli to the chair of Ecclesiastical History at the Roman Seminary was vetoed in 1912, having been indicated of “dubious orthodoxy.”

It must be remembered, at this juncture, the clamorous and forgotten episode of an intervention of the Holy Office against professor Don Roncalli that put an abrupt end to the teaching by the future John XXIII even at the Bergamo Seminary. It had been discovered that Roncalli, in defiance of the Encyclical “Pascendi” by his co-regional Pope Sarto, Pius X, not only acted as a modernist, but corresponded with the excommunicated priest Ernesto Buonaiuti. This priest and historian of the religions was amongst the major exponents of Modernism in Italy, and was excommunicated in 1926 for his progressive activity and his open insubordination to the ecclesiastical hierarchy. To get a precise idea of Buonaiuti, and of the ideas that he professed and advertised, it would suffice to go through the following letter written by the modernist priest, in October 1906, to the historian and French sociologist Albert Houtin, also a priest, who ended up abandoning the priesthood and the Church.

A known representative of Italian Modernism, just expelled by a decision of Pius X from the Collegio Apollinare, thus wrote to his French friend: “… Here, at the very center of Medieval theocracy, I wish to fulfill a work of tenacious corrosion… There are many of us friends, here in Rome, now, determined to operate in the critical field, to prepare the ultimate fall of the whole old carcass of Medieval orthodoxy. The trouble is that the laity does not favor us for now, as it ignores, nay, it tends to shift once again toward the Vatican in order to sustain the Monarchy. But I do hope that the example set by France, the very fatality of the historical evolution will soon also give to us an anti-clerical parliament and, with it, a radical ministry. Then our hour will have come.” The letter is self explanatory, and it is the most enlightened presentation of its author. Around such a rebel gathered a group of modernist priests that put so much effort into the propagation of their theories that Pius X believed it appropriate to condemn the movement with the Encyclical “Pascendi,” promulgated in 1907, which severely condemned Modernism. The same Pope set up in the Vatican a special section, the “Sodalitium Pianum,” into whose chair he placed monsignor Benigni, in order to single out and hit, one after the other, the suspects with severe sanctions. The group of the modernists was disrupted and dispersed. Buonaiuti, with his collaborator, Turchi, left for Ireland; the other priest followers, among whom Pioli, who left the habit, Rossi, who became an Evangelical pastor, Hagan, who retired in hermitic solitude, De Stefano, who also dropped the habit, Balducci and Perella who, shifted to the secular state, went underground.

It comes as no surprise that Roncalli would come into contact with such a champion of modernism. Evidently, the “Sodalitium Pianum” had been informed and had conveyed to the Holy Office a detailed denunciation. The conviction and immediate suspension fell on the large head of the teacher from Sotto il Monte, despite the cautious defense by the bishop. That denunciation, and the consequent intervention by the Holy Office, as was the custom, were archived in a special section of the Secret Vatican Archive. In the dusty shadow of that gigantic archive, among mountains of papers perfectly recorded and organized, they lay forgotten for nearly half a century. Until one afternoon, after office hours, a heavy, slightly shuffled footstep paced those arcades and those rooms in the half-light, and stood before a metal cabinet inside of which, so many years earlier, they had been locked up. The key turned in the lock and the doors were opened. Two large hands rummaged for some time through the numbered files, full of yellowed documents. The competence of the researcher in the matter of archives soon prevailed in that ocean of documents rigorously organized.


In his large right hand ornate with the “Anello Piscatorio” (Fisherman’s ring) stopped some old rustling papers. In the high stillness of the deserted archive John XXIII examined, for a time, smiling to himself, that ancient condemnation. He then shut the doors again and, with those papers in his hand, he returned to his apartment with the ermine trimmed Camauro (white fur-trimmed red bonnet associated with Medieval popes) lowered onto his eyes, while the shadows of the night descended upon the eleven-thousand deserted
rooms of the Vatican, watched by the unhurried, equal pacing of the Swiss Guards.

That night, unconsciously, John XXIII inaugurated, with that, his secret tampering in the Vatican Archives, that which would later become, with Paul VI, a pattern to the detriment of History: that of making compromising documents regarding the person of the Pontiff and his closest entourage vanish.

Having become Pope, Roncalli did not refrain from commenting, as was his style, on that misadventure of youth and would say, one day, in the course of an audience, “…For, as you can see, even a priest placed under “observation” by the Holy Office can, on occasion, become Pope!” Revealing, in the joke, his deep-rooted scorn toward the institutions of the traditional Church. (Nikita Roncalli.)

There is no room for anyone who adheres to the false ecclesiology of the “recognize while resist” movement to reject Roncalli’s upcoming “canonization” as even the conciliar authorities themselves admit that a pope’s canonization of a saint belongs to the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff in a “definitive way:”

In 1989, in fact, when the motu proprio “Ad tuendam fidem” of John Paul II was promulgated, in a subsequent “doctrinal note” connected to it and signed by then-cardinal Joseph Ratzinger “the canonizations of saints” were explicitly cited among “the doctrines infallibly proposed” by the Church “in a definitive way,” together with other doctrines like the reservation of priestly ordination for men only, the illicit nature of euthanasia, the illicit nature of prostitution and fornication, the legitimacy of the election of a pope or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the declaration of Leo XIII on the invalidity of Anglican orders. ((Vatican Diary: In a few months, six new saints canonized outside the rules.)

This is what instance in which the retired antipope, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, actually agreed with the plain teaching of the Catholic Church, which was summarized on the Novus Ordo Watch site in July of last year as the late theologian, Monsignor Gerardus von Noort was quoted:

PROPOSITION: When the teaching office of the Church hands down decisions on matters of faith and morals in such a way as to require of everyone full and absolute assent, it is infallible.

This is a dogma of faith.

[...]

In the definition given above the object of infallibility was expressed in these words borrowed from the Vatican Council: “when it defines a doctrine of faith or morals.” It remains now to fix more accurately the meaning and the scope of this formula. This will be done on the basis of the words of Christ and of the apostles cited in the course of the proof; and on the basis, too, of the purpose for which the privilege of infallibility was granted.

It is important to pay attention above all to the word doctrine; for infallibility concerns the teaching office and so has as its special object doctrines, or at least doctrinal decisions by which some truth is presented to be believed or maintained by everyone.

The formula, “a doctrine of faith or morals,” comprises all doctrines the knowledge of which is of vital concern to people if they are to believe aright and to live uprightly in accordance with the religion of Christ. Now doctrines of this sort have either been revealed themselves or are so closely allied with revelation that they cannot be neglected without doing harm to the latter. Consequently the object of infallibility is twofold: there is a primary and a secondary object.

[...]

PROPOSITION 2: The secondary object of infallibility comprises all those matters which are so closely connected with the revealed deposit that revelation itself would be imperilled unless an absolutely certain decision could he made about them.

The charism of infallibility was bestowed upon the Church so that the latter could piously safeguard and confidently explain the deposit of Christian revelation, and thus could be in all ages the teacher of Christian truth and of the Christian way of life. But if the Church is to fulfill this purpose, it must be infallible in its judgment of doctrines and facts which, even though not revealed, are so intimately connected with revelation that any error or doubt about them would constitute a peril to the faith. Furthermore, the Church must be infallible not only when it issues a formal decree, but also when it performs some action which, for all practical purposes, is the equivalent of a doctrinal definition.

One can easily see why matters connected with revelation are called the secondary object of infallibility. Doctrinal authority and infallibility were given to the Church’s rulers that they might safeguard and confidently explain the deposit of Christian revelation. That is why the chief object of infallibility, that, namely, which by its very nature falls within the scope of infallibility, includes only the truths contained in the actual deposit of revelation. Allied matters, on the other hand, which are not in the actual deposit, but contribute to its safeguarding and security, come within the purview of infallibility not bytheir very nature, but rather by reason of the revealed truth to which they are annexed. As a result, infallibility embraces them only secondarily. It follows that when the Church passes judgment on matters of this sort, it is infallible only insofar as they are connected with revelation.

When theologians go on to break up the general statement of this thesis into its component parts, they teach that the following individual matters belong to the secondary object of infallibility: 1. theological conclusions; 2. dogmatic facts; 3. the general discipline of the Church; 4. approval of religious orders; 5. canonization of saints.

[...]

Assertion 5: The Church’s infallibility extends to the canonization of saints. This is the common opinion today.

Canonization (formal) is the final and definitive decree by which the sovereign pontiff declares that someone has been admitted to heaven and is to be venerated by everyone, at least in the sense that all the faithful are held to consider the person a saint worthy of public veneration. It differs from beatification, which is a provisional rather than a definitive decree, by which veneration is only permitted, or at least is not universally prescribed. Infallibility is claimed for canonization only; a decree of beatification, which in the eyes of the Church is not definitive but may still be rescinded, is to be considered morally certain indeed, but not infallible. Still, there are some theologians who take a different view of the matter.

Proof:

1. From the solid conviction of the Church. When the popes canonize, they use terminology which makes it quite evident that they consider decrees of canonization infallible. Here is, in sum, the formula they use: “By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the apostles Peter and Paul and by our own authority, we declare that N. has been admitted to heaven, and we decree and define that he is to be venerated in public and in private as a saint.”

2. From the purpose of infallibility. The Church is infallible so that it may be a trustworthy teacher of the Christian religion and of the Christian way of life. But it would not be such if it could err in the canonization of saints. Would not religion be sullied if a person in hell were, by a definitive decree, offered to everyone as an object of religious veneration? Would not the moral law be at least weakened to some extent, if a protégé of the devil could be irrevocably set up as a model of virtue for all to imitate and for all to invoke? But it cannot be inferred: therefore the Church must also be infallible in authenticating the relics of the saints; for (a) the Church never issues so solemn a decree about relics; and (b) the cases are not parallel, for in the case of relics, it is a question of relative cult, while in that of the saints it is one of absolute cult.  (Mgr. G. Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology 2: Christ’s Church [Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1957], pp. 104, 108-110, 117-118.) (As found at Roncalli/Wojtyla “Canonization”.)

Well, all of the “miracles” wrought by “Pope John XXIII” and his successors will go the way of the “wonders” performed by the Pharao’s magicians:

[12] And they every one cast down their rods, and they were turned into serpents: but Aaron’s rod devoured their rods. (Exodus 7: 12.)

May our hearts not be hardened to the truth of our times as was the heart of the Pharao. May we pray to Our Lady, especially through he Most Holy Rosary, to persevere in the truth no matter what it may cost us as the Catholic Church could never “canonize” the likes of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII and Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II.

Vivat Chistus Rex!

Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.