Always Our Apostates

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Conciliar churches have been emptied of their parishioners.

Only between twenty-five and conciliar percent of Catholics attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism bother to attend their Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service every weekend.

Many conciliar church buildings and other properties have been sold because of the loss of parishioners wrought by the doctrinal and liturgical revolutions of conciliarism.

Other conciliar church buildings and properties have been sold to help to pay off the nearly $2 billion in settlements that have been awarded to victims of "episcopal" and presbyteral abuse.

Only thirty percent of Catholics in the conciliar structures believe in the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the Most Blessed Sacrament (leaving aside the fact that Our Lord is not present in the Novus Ordo church buildings).

The beliefs of Catholics in the conciliar structures on moral issues are very similar to those of non-Catholics (see Catholics Similar to Mainstream on Abortion, Stem Cells).

The empirical data concerning the bankruptcy of a false religion, conciliarism, speaks very clearly.

This empirical data, however, matters not to the lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism in the United States of America, who, much like the conciliar revolutionaries discussed yesterday in Offending God Every Day), are steeped in their world of apostasy and betrayal and abject unreality.

The unreality is such that the apparatchiks who served on an administrative committee of the United States Conference of "Catholic" "Bishops" (then named the United States "Catholic" Conference of the National Conference of "Catholic" Bishops") took the time to write a "pastoral letter" about the all-important, urgent, vital issue of how Catholic parents should react upon learning that their adolescent or grown child has discovered that he has an orientation in the direction of perverse acts against nature in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.

The pastoral letter, Always Our Children, was issued on September 10, 1997, without the full approval, it should be noted, of the body of conciliar "bishops" in the United States of America. Its text, however, showed that the bureaucrats in what I call the "ce-ment palace" (the headquarters of the USCCB), to paraphrase the fictional Jed Clampett's references to the swimming pool in the backyard of his Beverly Hills, California, mansion ("ce-ment pond"), on Fourth Street in Washington, District of Columbia, near the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception and The Catholic University of America, were propagandists in behalf of the agenda of the lavender crowd, contending falsely that human beings can base their very identities" on an inclination to commit perverse sins against nature. Sinful inclinations of any sort, perverse or natural, are not the basis of human self-identification, a little fact lost on the apostates at the United States Conference of "Catholic" "Bishops" who live in an insular, incestuous, self-perpetuating world of Modernism and statism and moral relativism.

Undaunted by such absurdities as Always Our Children, the American "bishops," many of whom fawned all over the late Senator Edward Moore Kennedy (see Another Victim of Americanism, Behold The Free Rein Given to Error, Unfortunate Enough to Be A Baby, Beacon of Social Justice?, Spotlight On The Ordinary, What's Good For Teddy Is Good For Benny, Sean O'Malley: Coward and Hypocrite, More Rationalizations and Distortions, and Death To Babies: Kennedy's Continued Legacy) and have done nothing to sanction Catholics in public life who are attached to their false structures while supporting chemical and surgical baby killing and other evils under cover of the civil law, continue to assault the integrity of the Catholic Faith and to abandon the cause of the salvation of the souls for whom Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross to redeem (see also Voices From Hell).

The latest assault is so absurd and so patently apostate and so patently a surrender to demands made by the ancient enemies of the Catholic Faith, the ancient enemies of Christ the King--namely, the adherents of the Talmud who deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and whose "sacred book," the Talmud, blasphemes Our Lord and Our Lady and Saint Joseph and encourages crimes against Catholics--as to invite comedic caricatures of epic proportions. The men, posing as "bishops," responsible for this latest assault against the Holy Faith have demonstrated themselves to be laughably clueless about the duties of real bishops. They have also shown themselves to be pathetically cowardly in their craven cowering in fright of any criticism at all from those who make it their own diabolical business to tell what they think to be the Catholic Church how to conduct her business and how she is to treat their false religion that is hideous in the sight of God.

Here is the skinny:

An "unofficial" "consultation" of the National Council of Synagogues and  the "Bishops' Committee" for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops was released, August 12, 2002, that contained the following passages of rank apostasy:

According to Roman Catholic teaching, both the Church and the Jewish people abide in covenant with God. We both therefore have missions before God to undertake in the world. The Church believes that the mission of the Jewish people is not restricted to their historical role as the people of whom Jesus was born "according to the flesh" (Rom 9:5) and from whom the Church’s apostles came. As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger recently wrote, "God’s providence … has obviously given Israel a particular mission in this ‘time of the Gentiles.’" However, only the Jewish people themselves can articulate their mission "in the light of their own religious experience."

Nonetheless, the Church does perceive that the Jewish people’s mission ad gentes (to the nations) continues. This is a mission that the Church also pursues in her own way according to her understanding of covenant. The command of the Resurrected Jesus in Matthew 28:19 to make disciples "of all nations" (Greek = ethnē, the cognate of the Hebrew = goyim; i.e., the nations other than Israel) means that the Church must bear witness in the world to the Good News of Christ so as to prepare the world for the fullness of the kingdom of God. However, this evangelizing task no longer includes the wish to absorb the Jewish faith into Christianity and so end the distinctive witness of Jews to God in human history.

Thus, while the Catholic Church regards the saving act of Christ as central to the process of human salvation for all, it also acknowledges that Jews already dwell in a saving covenant with God. The Catholic Church must always evangelize and will always witness to its faith in the presence of God’s kingdom in Jesus Christ to Jews and to all other people. In so doing, the Catholic Church respects fully the principles of religious freedom and freedom of conscience, so that sincere individual converts from any tradition or people, including the Jewish people, will be welcomed and accepted.

However, it now recognizes that Jews are also called by God to prepare the world for God’s kingdom. Their witness to the kingdom, which did not originate with the Church’s experience of Christ crucified and raised, must not be curtailed by seeking the conversion of the Jewish people to Christianity. The distinctive Jewish witness must be sustained if Catholics and Jews are truly to be, as Pope John Paul II has envisioned, "a blessing to one another." This is in accord with the divine promise expressed in the New Testament that Jews are called to "serve God without fear, in holiness and righteousness before God all [their] days" (Luke 1:74-75). (Joint Reflections on Covenant and Mission.)

 

This incredible piece of apostasy is a denial of the fact that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ came to convert everyone, including Jews, to the true Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order. It is blasphemy against Our Lord. It is blasphemy against our first Pope, Saint Peter, who preached the following discourse to the Jews in Jerusalem on the first Pentecost Sunday following the descent of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, upon him and other other Apostles and Our Lady in the same Upper Room where Our Lord had instituted the Holy Priesthood and the Eucharist at the Last Supper fifty-three days before:

Ye men of Judea, and all you that dwell in Jerusalem, be this known to you, and with your ears receive my words. For these are not drunk, as you suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day:

But this is that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel: And it shall come to pass, in the last days, (saith the Lord,) I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams. And upon my servants indeed, and upon my handmaids will I pour out in those days of my spirit, and they shall prophesy. And I will shew wonders in the heaven above, and signs on the earth beneath: blood and fire, and vapour of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and manifest day of the Lord come.

And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved. Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him, in the midst of you, as you also know: This same being delivered up, by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you by the hands of wicked men have crucified and slain. Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the sorrows of hell, as it was impossible that he should be holden by it. For David saith concerning him: I foresaw the Lord before my face: because he is at my right hand, that I may not be moved.

For this my heart hath been glad, and any tongue hath rejoiced: moreover my flesh also shall rest in hope. Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, nor suffer thy Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life: thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. Ye men, brethren, let me freely speak to you of the patriarch David; that he died, and was buried; and his sepulchre is with us to this present day. Whereas therefore he was a prophet, and knew that God hath sworn to him with an oath, that of the fruit of his loins one should sit upon his throne.

Foreseeing this, he spoke of the resurrection of Christ. For neither was he left in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised again, whereof all we are witnesses. Being exalted therefore by the right hand of God, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath poured forth this which you see and hear. For David ascended not into heaven; but he himself said: The Lord said to my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy enemies thy footstool.

Therefore let all the house of Israel know most certainly, that God hath made both Lord and Christ, this same Jesus, whom you have crucified. Now when they had heard these things, they had compunction in their heart, and said to Peter, and to the rest of the apostles: What shall we do, men and brethren? But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call. And with very many other words did he testify and exhort them, saying: Save yourselves from this perverse generation.

They therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls. And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers. And fear came upon every soul: many wonders also and signs were done by the apostles in Jerusalem, and there was great fear in all. And all they that believed, were together, and had all things common. Their possessions and goods they sold, and divided them to all, according as every one had need. (Acts 2: 14-41.)

 

Joint Reflections on Covenant and Mission is a repudiation of the efforts of Saint Peter to convert his own people to the true Faith. It is a repudiation of the work of such great Catholic missionaries as Saint Vincent Ferrer, who converted thousands of Jews and Mohammedans in the Iberian Peninsula and southern France to Catholicism at the end of the Fourteenth and the beginning of the Fifteenth Centuries. It is a repudiation of the work of Father Alphonse Ratisbonne, who was converted by the Mother of God herself by her appearance to him in the Church of San Andrea delle Fratte on January 20, 1842, as he sought the conversion of the Jews in Palestine. And Joint Reflections on Covenant and Mission of the binding nature of the following dogmatic pronouncement made at the Council of Florence on on February 4, 1442:

It [the Holy Roman Catholic Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

 

Saint John Chrysostom gave us a brilliant explication of Catholic teaching concerning the fact that Jewish religion has been superseded by the Catholic Faith and is no longer pleasing to God:

 

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)

 

Joint Reflections on Covenant and Mission is a repudiation of Pope Saint Pius X's earnest and thoroughly Catholic efforts to seek the conversion of the founder of International Zionism, Theodore Herzl, to the true Faith in an audience His Holiness granted Herzl on January 25, 1904:

 

HERZL: Yesterday I was with the Pope [Pius X]. . . . I arrived ten minutes ahead of time, and without having to wait I was conducted through a number of small reception rooms to the Pope. He received me standing and held out his hand, which I did not kiss. Lippay had told me I had to do it, but I didn’t. I believe this spoiled my chances with him, for everyone who visits him kneels and at least kisses his hand. This hand kiss had worried me a great deal and I was glad when it was out of the way.

He seated himself in an armchair, a throne for minor affairs, and invited me to sit by his side. He smiled in kindly anticipation. I began:

HERZL: I thank Your Holiness for the favor of granting me this audience. [I begged him to excuse my miserable Italian, but he said:

POPE: No, Signor Commander, you speak very well.

HERZL: [He is an honest, rough-hewn village priest, to whom Christianity has remained a living thing even in the Vatican. I briefly laid my request before him. But annoyed perhaps by my refusal to kiss his hand, he answered in a stern categorical manner.

POPE: We are unable to favor this movement [of Zionism]. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem—but we could never sanction it. The ground of Jerusalem, if it were not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church I cannot answer you otherwise. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people.

HERZL: [The conflict between Rome and Jerusalem, represented by the one and the other of us, was once again under way. At the outset I tried to be conciliatory. I said my little piece. . . . It didn’t greatly impress him. Jerusalem was not to be placed in Jewish hands.] And its present status, Holy Father?

POPE: I know, it is disagreeable to see the Turks in possession of our Holy Places. We simply have to put up with it. But to sanction the Jewish wish to occupy these sites, that we cannot do.

HERZL: [I said that we based our movement solely on the sufferings of the Jews, and wished to put aside all religious issues].

POPE: Yes, but we, but I as the head of the Catholic Church, cannot do this. One of two things will likely happen. Either the Jews will retain their ancient faith and continue to await the Messiah whom we believe has already appeared—in which case they are denying the divinity of Jesus and we cannot assist them. Or else they will go there with no religion whatever, and then we can have nothing at all to do with them. The Jewish faith was the foundation of our own, but it has been superceded by the teachings of Christ, and we cannot admit that it still enjoys any validity. The Jews who should have been the first to acknowledge Jesus Christ have not done so to this day.

HERZL: [It was on the tip of my tongue to remark, “It happens in every family: no one believes in his own relative.” But, instead, I said:] Terror and persecution were not precisely the best means for converting the Jews. [His reply had an element of grandeur in its simplicity:]

POPE: Our Lord came without power. He came in peace. He persecuted no one. He was abandoned even by his apostles. It was only later that he attained stature. It took three centuries for the Church to evolve. The Jews therefore had plenty of time in which to accept his divinity without duress or pressure. But they chose not to do so, and they have not done it yet.

HERZL: But, Holy Father, the Jews are in a terrible plight. I do not know if Your Holiness is aware of the full extent of their tragedy. We need a land for these harried people.

POPE: Must it be Jerusalem?

HERZL: We are not asking for Jerusalem, but for Palestine—for only the secular land.

POPE: We cannot be in favor of it.

[Editor Lowenthal interjects here] Here unrelenting replacement theology is plainly upheld as the norm of the Roman Catholic Church. Further, this confession, along with the whole tone of the Pope in his meeting with Herzl, indicates the perpetuation of a doctrinal emphasis that has resulted in centuries of degrading behavior toward the Jews. However, this response has the “grandeur” of total avoidance of that which Herzl had intimated, namely that the abusive reputation of Roman Catholicism toward the Jews was unlikely to foster conversion. Further, if, “It took three centuries for the Church to evolve,” it was that very same period of time that it took for the Church to consolidate and launch its thrust of anti-Semitism through the following centuries.

HERZL: Does Your Holiness know the situation of the Jews?

POPE: Yes, from my days in Mantua, where there are Jews. I have always been in friendly relations with Jews. Only the other evening two Jews were here to see me. There are other bonds than those of religion: social intercourse, for example, and philanthropy. Such bonds we do not refuse to maintain with the Jews. Indeed we also pray for them, that their spirit see the light. This very day the Church is celebrating the feast of an unbeliever who became converted in a miraculous manner—on the road to Damascus. And so if you come to Palestine and settle your people there, we will be ready with churches and priests to baptize all of you.

HERZL: [At this point Conte Lippay had himself announced. The Pope bade him be admitted. The Conte kneeled, kissed his hand, and joined in the conversation by telling of our “miraculous” meeting in the Bauer beerhall at Venice. The miracle was that he had originally intended to stay overnight in Padua, and instead, it turned out that he was given to hear me express the wish to kiss the Holy Father’s foot. At this the Pope made no movement, for I hadn’t even kissed his hand. Lippay proceeded to tell how I had expiated on the noble qualities of Jesus Christ. The Pope listened, and now and then took a pinch of snuff and sneezed into a big red cotton handkerchief. It is these peasant touches which I like about him best and which most of all compel my respect. Lippay, it would appear, wanted to account for his introducing me, and perhaps ward off a word of reproach. But the Pope said:

POPE: On the contrary, I am glad you brought me the Signor Commendatore.

HERZL: [As to the real business, he repeated what he had told me, until he dismissed us:]

POPE: Not possible!

HERZL: [Lippay stayed on his knees for an unconscionable time and never seemed to tire of kissing his hand. It was apparent that this was what the Pope liked. But on taking leave, I contented myself with shaking his hand warmly and bowing deeply. The audience lasted about twenty-five minutes. While spending the last hour in the Raphael gallery, I saw a picture of an Emperor kneeling before a seated Pope and receiving the crown from his hands. That’s how Rome wants it.]   (Marvin Lowenthal, Diaries of Theodore Herzl, pp. 427- 430.)

 

Far from being an "isolated" statement made by some "renegade" American 'bishops," Joint Reflections on Covenant and Mission was and remains a very good reflection of the apostate sentiments expressed by conciliar figures in Rome, including Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI himself:

If Jews one day come (as Paul hopes) to a more positive judgment of Jesus, this must occur through an inner process, as the end of a search of their own (something that in part is occurring). We Christians cannot be the ones who seek to convert them. We have lost the right to do so by the way in which this was done in the past. First the wounds must be healed through dialogue and reconciliation. (Father Raniero Cantalamessa, O.F.M., Cap., Zenit, September 30, 2005. Father Cantalamessa is the "preacher" to the "papal" household.)

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

I cannot see why this prayer should present any reason to interrupt our dialogue. On the contrary, it is an opportunity and a challenge to continue the dialogue on what we have in common and what differentiates us in our Messianic hope.

I am happy that after some perplexities we now hear more and more voices from the Jewish world seeing things in a realistic way, and I do hope that this letter can be a contribution to overcome the misunderstandings and grievances. (Walter "Cardinal" Kasper's Letter to Rabbi Rosen)

Cardinal Ratzinger himself began backpedaling almost immediately at the September 5 [2000] press conference itself. According to the Italian bishops' newspaper Avvenire, when asked whether DI [Dominus Iesus] taught that the Jews could not be saved without faith in Christ, Ratzinger offered the following non-answer: "Every Catholic theologian recognizes the salvific role of that people." Granted that "salvation is of the Jews," as our Lord taught us (John 4:22), but as He says immediately afterward: "But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth"--that is, the Messiah has arrived and shall be adored by those who worship truly. Having rejected the Messiah, however, what "salvific role" does modern Israel play today? When pressed on whether an individual Jew could be saved without recognizing Christ, the Cardinal replied that "it is not necessary that he recognize Christ the savior, and it is not given to us to explore how salvation, the gift of God, can come even for him." Ratzinger went on to say that "Christ is a reality that changes history, even for those who do not recognize him." Are we to take from this that Christ saves the Jews whether they recognize him or not, simply because His existence "changes history"?

However, it appears that at the same press conference Ratzinger gave a more nuanced answer, apparently in response to another questioner:

 

[We]e are in agreement that a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved, if there are insurmountable impediments, of which he is not blameworthy, to preclude it. However...Christian history affects us all, even those who are opposed or cannot encounter Christ. This is a reality that transforms history; it is something important for others, without violating their conscience.

Now, which is it--that a Jew need not recognize Christ in order to be saved, or that a Jew need not recognize Christ if there is an "insurmountable impediment"? Note also that Cardinal Ratzinger here repeats the suggestion that the mere presence of Christ in history "affects" Jews who reject him. What does this mean? One thing all these remarks mean is a diminution of the impact of DI's teaching that Christ is the sole mediator of the only way of salvation for all men--a teaching DI itself nuances nearly to the point of irrelevance.

Since the publication of DI was supposed to be the occasion for clarifying confusion about Christ and salvation, why not end a long period of postconciliar confusion by stating forthrightly what the Church always taught before the Council: "Yes, objectively speaking, a Jew must come to Christ and be baptized in order to be saved, just like everyone else in the human race; for Christ is God and He commissioned His Church to make disciples of all nations. This is what the Catholic Church has always taught and always will teach." Instead, Cardinal Ratzinger immediately focused on "insurmountable impediments." And what is an "insurmountable impediment" in the first place? Is this notion something even broader than the ever-expanding category of "invincible ignorance"? Cardinal Ratzinger gave no indications. However, if one of Rabbi Toaff's own predecessors as chief rabbi of Rome, Rabbi Israel Zolli, was able to follow God's grace into the Roman Catholic Church immediately after World War II, then why not Rabbi Toaff himself or any other Jew alive today--especially after thirty-five years of "Jewish-Christian" dialogue," which was supposed to engender greater understanding of the Church on the part of Jews?

Or is the mere fact of being a Jew, immersed in Jewish religion and culture, and facing ostracism if one converts, now to be considered an "insurmountable impediment" to conversion? If so, then no Jew from St. Paul to the present day has ever been subjectively obliged to join the Church; nor has anyone else in religious, emotional or cultural circumstances that would make conversion difficult. But this would mean that the only people obliged to become Catholics are those who would not find conversion unduly burdensome. Everyone else has an "insurmountable impediment." That is the very thesis being promoted by some of the more liberal exponents of "invincible ignorance," who speak of "unconscious psychological blocks" and other elaborate pseudo-scientific excuses for not becoming a Catholic that have proliferated since Vatican II. There is very little place for the power of God's grace in this kind of semi-Pelagian thinking. We are not here contending that Cardinal Ratzinger himself actually teaches anything like this, but in view of the veiled nature of his remarks it is difficult to know what he is teaching. A clarification of DI's "clarifications" is already urgently needed. (Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Great Facade, The Remnant Press, 2002, pp. 369-372.)

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 Ratzinger, Preface to The Jewish People and Their Scriptures in the Christian Bible.)

It is clear that this commitment to expressing a specific truth in a new way demands new thinking on this truth and a new and vital relationship with it; it is also clear that new words can only develop if they come from an informed understanding of the truth expressed, and on the other hand, that a reflection on faith also requires that this faith be lived. In this regard, the programme that Pope John XXIII proposed was extremely demanding, indeed, just as the synthesis of fidelity and dynamic is demanding.. . .

Thirdly, linked more generally to this was the problem of religious tolerance - a question that required a new definition of the relationship between the Christian faith and the world religions. In particular, before the recent crimes of the Nazi regime and, in general, with a retrospective look at a long and difficult history, it was necessary to evaluate and define in a new way the relationship between the Church and the faith of Israel.  (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005)

Joint Reflections on Covenant and Mission was and remains a pretty good reflection of the belief, expressed by curial officials, including Ratzinger/Benedict himself, that the counterfeit church of conciliarism has no mission from God to seek the conversion of the Jews. Ratzinger/Benedict never spoke of any need for the Jews to convert during his pilgrimage to Israel earlier this year, just as he did not speak of any need to convert the Mohammedans as he spoke of mosques" as "jewels" and as "sacred" places. Sacred to who? Sacred to the devil, that's who. The mere fact that he treated rabbis as having legitimacy in the eyes of God and met with them as "equals" without seeking their conversion testifies to the ethos of apostasy and betrayal that is right in front of our very eyes.

The disconnect in conciliarism's world of Hegelian contradiction and paradox is such, however, that there were some officials in the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who wanted there to be a "clarification" of Joint Reflections on Covenant and Mission. This "clarification" was issued by the United States Conference of "Catholic" "Bishops" in June of this year. The "clarification" noted that the Catholic Church did indeed have a mission to seek the conversion of the Jews to the true Faith, thus setting off a firestorm of criticism from Talmudic rabbis.

It should be patently obvious by now, of course, what happens when Talmudic rabbis complain about the actions of conciliar "popes" and/or conciliar "bishops." They win! They get their way. That's what happens.

Talmudic rabbis complained when Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI issued Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007, arguing that the "Prayer for the Jews" in the modernized, 1962 version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition was anti-Semitic and opposed to the "ecumenical spirit" of the "Second" Vatican Council. What did Ratzinger/Benedict XVI do? He rewrote the prayer, doing so in such an awkward way as to set off yet another firestorm of protests that necessitated special commentaries from one of Ratzinger/Benedict's fellow apostates, the afore cited Walter "Cardinal" Kasper (see An Act That Speaks For Itself, No Lessons Learned After Forty Years of Appeasement and Apostasy,and Telling the Lost Sheep to Stay Lost).

Talmudic rabbis have complained loud and long about the conciliar "canonization" process of Pope Pius XII. What happened? Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, without making any promises to them, gave them an audience to present their concerns to him (see Into the Deep Freezer, All for Fear of the Jews).

Talmudic rabbis are still upset over the comments about the nature and the extent of the crimes committed by the Third Reich of Adolf Hitler against Jews and others made by Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of Saint Pius X in a Swedish television interview aired on January 21, 2009, setting off yet another controversy that saw Ratzinger/Benedict go to great lengths to say that denying the "holocaust" will not be tolerated in his false church (although he does tolerate German "archbishop" Robert Zollitsch's denial that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ died in atonement for our sins, see Silence). One conciliar "bishop" after another tripped over each other to curry favor with the ancient enemies of Our Lord and His true Church (see Those Who Deny The Holocaust, Recognize and Capitulate, Voices From Hell, Disciples of Caiphas, No Crime Is Worse Than Deicide, Yes, Sir, Master Scribe, and Nothing New Under the Conciliar Sun), pointing fingers very openly at Ratzinger/Benedict himself, who met once again with Talmudic officials to assuage their anger.

It should come as absolutely no surprise, therefore, that the "clarification" to Joint Reflections on Covenant and Mission issued by the United States Conference of "Catholic" "Bishops" at the behest of the curial Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith itself would be "clarified"--in truth, of course, repudiated--in response to public pressure brought by Talmudic rabbis. Here is the "offending" passage in the document issued by the USCCB in June of this year:

Though Christian participation in interreligious dialogue would not normally include an explicit invitation to baptism and entrance into the church, the Christian dialogue partner is always giving witness to the following of Christ, to which all are implicitly invited. (A NOTE ON AMBIGUITIES CONTAINED IN REFLECTIONS ON COVENANT AND MISSION.)

 

This mealy-mouthed statement is what caused Talmudic rabbis to set off yet another firestorm of protest as they complained to their "partners" (subservient, obsequious servants) in the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Several rabbis sent the following letter, dated August 18, 2009, to the conciliar "bishops" to protest the wording of that one paragraph in A NOTE ON AMBIGUITIES CONTAINED IN REFLECTIONS ON COVENANT AND MISSION:

The recent USCCB statement “A Note on Ambiguities Contained in Covenant and Mission” has caused serious concern in the Jewish community.  

A major source of concern is the document’s assertion that the remark in the earlier Reflections on Mission and Covenant that interreligious dialogue is "devoid of any intention whatsoever to invite the dialogue partner to baptism" needs to be qualified.  According to the new document, “though Christian participation in interreligious dialogue would not normally include an explicit invitation to baptism and entrance into the Church, the Christian dialogue partner is always giving witness to the following of Christ to which all are implicitly invited."  Since Reflections focused specifically on Jews, the latest statement informs us that Catholics engaging in dialogue with Jews must have the intention of extending an implicit invitation to embrace Christianity and that one can even imagine a situation in such a dialogue where this invitation would be made explicit. 

A declaration of this sort is antithetical to the very essence of Jewish-Christian dialogue as we have understood it in the post-Vatican II era.  We pose no objection to the position that Christians must bear witness to the truth of their faith and expound on it forthrightly, candidly and passionately. However, once Jewish-Christian dialogue has been formally characterized as an invitation, whether explicit or implicit, to apostatize, then Jewish participation becomes untenable.

The second source of concern has to do with the continuing validity of the Mosaic covenant.  Section 10 of the new USCCB "Note" states that “the fulfillment of the covenants, indeed, of all of God’s promises to Israel, is found only in Jesus Christ.” This appears to posit that the Mosaic covenant is obsolete and Judaism no longer has a reason to exist.

There is a range of views within the Jewish community about the appropriate Jewish reaction to a Christian denial of the validity of this covenant.  But we all recognize that affirming its validity is more likely to result in more positive attitudes toward Jews, and we were consequently encouraged by a series of what appeared to be authoritative  statements by Church officials over the years that endorsed this affirmation.  One example of such a statement is the following affirmation made by Cardinal Walter Kasper at the most important venue for Catholic-Jewish dialogue where he spoke in his capacity as the Vatican’s chief official for relations with the Jews (published in America, Sept. 17, 2001):  “One of these questions is how to relate the covenant with the Jewish people, which according to St. Paul is unbroken and not revoked but still in vigor, with what we Christians call the New Covenant. As you know, the old theory of substitution is gone since the Second Vatican Council. For us Christians today the covenant with the Jewish people is a living heritage, a living reality.” 

The new statement has therefore engendered both uncertainty and considerable disappointment with respect to the position maintained by the Church and its spokespersons regarding this matter.

The “Note” has not only raised questions about the Church’s perception of the Mosaic Covenant; it espouses a view of the objective of Jewish-Christian dialogue that threatens the mutuality and efficaciousness of the entire project. We are deeply concerned. (National Jewish Interfaith Leadership Letter on USCCB Note.)

 

Talmudic rabbis shout "boo!" Conciliar "bishops" go "oooh!," convinced that they had to issue a "clarification" of their "clarification" (see www.usccb.org/seia/StatementofPrinciples.pdf). Here the text of that statement of apostasy, filled with internal self-contradictions that are astounding to behold:

On June 18, 2009 two of our committees issued a statement on a document written in 2002 by scholars who were part of a standing consultation between the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the National Council of Synagogues. The "Note on Ambiguities Contained in Reflections on Covenant and Mission," while intended as a clarification of Church teaching primarily for the benefit of Catholics, has been misinterpreted by some Catholics and some Jews and has led to misunderstanding and feelings of hurt among members of the Jewish community. Because we are dialogue partners, this hurt is ours as well. As a means of removing any doubt as to our commitment to respect Jewish self-identity in our dialogues, and to promote deeper bonds of friendship and mutual understanding between the members of our two communities, we bishops affirm the following:

1. Pope John Paul II summed up the teaching of the Catholic Church when he said that "God chose Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and made with a covenant of eternal love, which was never revoked." Jewish covenantal life endures till the present day as a vital witness to God's saving will for His people Israel and for all humanity.

2. At the same time, in the faith that comes to us from the apostles, Jesus Christ is the unique savior of all humankind, who fulfills in himself all of God's promises and covenants with the people of Israel. Faith in him as the divine Son of God is first and foremost a gift of God, and the free human response to that gift can never be coerced.

3. Catholics have a sacred responsibility to bear witness to Christ at every moment of their lives, but lived context shapes the form of that witness to the Lord we love. Jewish-Catholic dialogue, one of the blessed fruits of the Second Vatican Council, has never been and will never be used by the Catholic Church as a means of proselytism--nor is it intended as a disguised invitation to baptism. In sitting at the table, we expect to encounter Jews who are faithful to the Mosaic covenant, just as we insist that only Catholics committed to the teaching of the Church encounter them in our dialogues.

4. While the work of theologians makes an invaluable contribution to interreligious dialogue, it falls to the bishops of the Church, acting in harmony with the Pope, to represent authoritatively what Catholics believe. As our dialogue continues to move forward, we on the Catholic side have a responsibility to our Jewish partners to distinguish for them when a statement refers to Church teaching and when it is a theological opinion of scholars.

5. A catechism is a compendium of the articles of faith, and therefore contains only settled teaching. The recent changes in the United States Adult Catholic Catechism, which concerned the matter of the Mosaic covenant, was made to meet the pedagogical needs of catechumens and other adult learners while reflecting the teaching of Vatican II on God's fidelity to the Jewish people.

6. We remain deeply committed to dialogue and friendship with the Jewish people, who are, in the words of Pope John Paul II, "our elder brothers and sisters in the faith." Our shared witness to the faithfulness of God, and to the peaceable kingdom to which the Most High calls us, is for the sake of the healing of the world. (Statement of Principles.)

 

The Response to Rabbis promised to excise the "offensive" paragraph so that adherents of the Talmud would not feel compelled to commit "apostasy" by converting to what they think is the Catholic Church as they engage in "inter-religious dialogue:"

After further discussion, our Committees have decided to amend the Note by excising the last two sentences of paragraph seven in order to address the concerns you and others have raised about the relationship dialogue and witness. We hope that his effort will result in a clearer statement of Catholic belief that also respects the special relationship between the Catholic Church and the Jewish people. We anticipate that the process of amending the Note will be completed in the weeks ahead. (Response to Rabbis.)

If conversion is not the ultimate end of such "dialogue" and if the Mosaic Covenant has not been superseded by the New and Eternal Covenant instituted by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ at the Last Supper and ratified by the shedding of His Most Precious Blood, the Precious Blood and the New and Eternal Paschal Lamb of God Who taketh away the sins of the world, then what is the point of "inter-religious dialogue" other than to convince ostensible representatives of the Catholic Church to keep their beliefs to themselves as they reaffirm others in a false religion that has the power to save no one and is hateful in the sight of God?

Yes, indeed, my friends, the American "bishops" remain always our apostates.

Here is but a brief analysis of the Statement of Principles:

1. We do not base the proclamation of the truths of the Holy Faith upon the feelings of anyone. Our Lord was very blunt in His condemnation of the Pharisees. Saint Peter and the other Apostles told the leaders of the Sanhedrin that they must obey God rather than men. Hurt feelings? Here is a newsflash to the apostates of the United States Conference of "Catholic" "Bishops:" the sixties are over. Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ told us that He had come to bring division based on belief or rejection of Him, not a sappy sentimentality wherein no one's feelings would be "hurt" by the proclamation of His Holy Gospel by Holy Mother Church:

Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven. 33 But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven. Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

And a man's enemies shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me, shall find it. He that receiveth you, receiveth me: and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me. (Matthew 10: 33-40.)

 

2. The Mosaic Covenant was superseded by the New and Eternal Covenant of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (see Pope Saint Pius X's statement to that effect to Theodore Herzl).

3. If Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is the "unique savior of all humankind," why do not Jews have an obligation to convert to belief in Him as He has revealed Himself to His true Faith. Was the first Pope, Saint Peter, wrong, therefore, to seek with urgency the conversion of the Jews on the first Pentecost Sunday?

4. Jewish-Catholic "dialogue" is one of the "blessed fruits" of the "Second" Vatican Council? What fruits? Constant surrender on the part of ostensibly Catholic officials to the demands made by adherents of a document, the Talmud, that blasphemes Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His Most Blessed Mother? Blessed fruits? This is insanity. The Catholic Church has nothing to "learn" from such "dialogue" as she contains within herself the totality of Divine Revelation and lacks no "understanding" of anything pertinent to the salvation of souls."Inter-religious dialogue" is an implicit denial of the Church's constitution.

5. There is no need to "speculate" as to the nature of Catholic-Jewish "relations." The teaching of the Catholic Church is clear: Talmudic Judaism is a false religion that has the power to save no one. Catholics have an obligation to pray and to work for the conversion of everyone to the true Church. There is no need for any kind of theological speculation on this matter whatsoever. It is only the counterfeit church of conciliarism that has introduced ambiguity into that which is clear, namely, that every religion other than Catholicism is false and is thus of the devil.

6. "Shared witness to the faithfulness of God?" A false religion cannot bear any kind of witness to God. The First Commandment means what it says: "I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no strange gods before me." (See also my discussion  in Christ the King? of the conciliar Vatican's praise for the Noachide Covenant.

 

Make no mistake about this matter, however: the American "bishops" could not have issued their Response to Rabbis or their Statement of Principles without direct authorization from conciliar authorities in the Vatican itself. With all of the controversies between conciliarists and adherents of the Talmud in the past twenty-seven months, my friends, you can rest assured that both the Response to Rabbis and the Statement of Principles was vetted and approved by conciliar authorities in the Vatican, who have proven themselves to be craven cowards when comes to knuckling under to the pressure brought to bear by people whose conversion they should be seeking but who they continue to reaffirm in a false religion until their very deaths. One wonders if the bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X will have to concur in the Response to Rabbis and the Statement of Principles in order to become full participants in the high church, low church ape of the Catholic Church that is the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

 No sane or intellectually honest individual can reconcile conciliarism's apostate views about the false religion of Talmudic Judaism with these plain words of the Divine Redeemer before He Ascended into Heaven forty days after His Resurrection from the dead on Easter Sunday:

Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of the world. (Matthew 28:19-20)

Today is the Feast of the Most Holy Rosary. We need to pray a Rosary right now (if at all possible) for the conversion of the adherents of all false religions, including those in the counterfeit church of conciliarism and those who adhere to the blasphemous Talmud. It is never an act of love for any human being to reaffirm him, whether by omission or commission, in a false religion. We must, therefore, pray for the conversion of all adherents of false religions as we pray, of course, most fervently in reparation for our own many sins that have shown ourselves to be the enemies of Christ the King and Mary our Immaculate Queen all too frequently in our lives, giving all to the tender mercies of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

And may it be our prayer in our Rosaries today that at least a few priests and presbyters in the counterfeit church of conciliarism will see this latest act of apostasy to be indicative of the fact that that it is necessary to break from men who are enemies of the Faith and to start acting as real Catholic men who eschew human respect in order to defend Its Holy Integrity without any compromise and without fear for the temporal losses they may suffer for doing so. The hour is late. Human respect and the desire for regularity of income and benefits cannot be used as excuses before God for failing to defend His Sacred Truths when they are under attack.

Saint Vincent de Paul explained that God will not provide His paternal care to those who manage their affair with artifices, and it takes great artifices to pretend that the apostasies and heresies of concilairism do not exist or that they do not require an open response from men who know better in order to defend the honor and glory and majesty of God:

Whoever manages his affairs with artifices and subterfuges offends the providence of God and renders himself unworthy of His paternal care (quoted in A Year With the Saints, p. 285.)

 

The Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph in the end. The conciliarists and their apostasies will be consigned to the dustbin of history. We must, however, in the meantime cleave exclusively to true bishops and true priests who make no concessions to conciliarism or its apostates, men who will help us to get home to Heaven as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

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.

Pope Saint Mark I, pray for us.

Saints Sergius, Bacchus, Marcellus, and Apuleius, pray for us.

 

See also: A Litany of Saints