New Printer Needed.
Continuously Denying The Catholic Faith
by Thomas A. Droleskey
Although it had been my hope that Trying To Put Humpty Dumpty Back Together Again was one of the last times that I would have to deal with the madness of Jorge Mario Bergoglio's supposedly newfound embrace of Joseph Ratinger/Benedict XVI's philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned "hermeneutic of continuity" as the "authentic" means to "interpret" the "Second" Vatican Council in order to "find" a nonexistent "continuity" with the"past," including the Council of Trent, it is necessary yet again to do so, if ever so briefly, as the absurdity emanating from the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River is bound by no sense of shame and feeds on redundancy. To deal with the such absurdity and redundancy on a continuous basis is oppressive, which is why this article will be very brief.
Attempting to portray Jorge Mario Bergoglio's "Petrine Ministry" as a "continuation" of that of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is replete with all manner of ironies, starting with the fact that the "hermeneutic of continuity" is nothing other than Modernism's "evolution of doctrine" with a new label and a bit of "evolution" of its own over time, principally courtesy of the "new theology" in which Ratzinger/Benedict was trained during his seminary years. No matter whether it is called by the monicker given to it by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul that has been used now and again by Bergoglio himself in the past eight months, thirteen days, "living tradition," or by the phrase given it by the Antipope Emeritus in his infamous curia address of December 22, 2005, the "hermeneutic of continuity," Modernism's "evolution of doctrine" is an attack upon the very immutability of God Himself and upon the infallibility of the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium of Holy Mother Church.
Here is the latest chapter in this continuing saga of absurdity and apostasy:
Pope Francis has embraced the ‘hermeneutic of reform’ that Pope
Benedict XVI proposed as the key to interpreting the teachings of
In a letter dated November 19 and released November 23, the Pope
appointed Cardinal Walter Brandmüller as his special envoy to the
December celebration the 450th anniversary of the conclusion of the
Council of Trent (1545-63), the nineteenth of the Church’s 21 ecumenical
Cardinal Brandmüller, 84, is the president emeritus of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences.
“It is appropriate that the Church recall with a more prompt and
attentive zeal the very fruitful doctrine that came to pass from that
Council held in the Tyrolean region,” Pope Francis said in his
Latin-language letter, as translated in a literal (if stilted) manner.
“Indeed, not without reason has the Church already for a long time
directed such concern to that Council’s decrees and counsels that ought
to be commemorated and observed, since, when very grave matters and
questions appeared at that time, the Council Fathers applied all
diligence, that the Catholic faith might appear distinctly and be better
“Indeed, with the Holy Spirit inspiring and prompting, it concerned them
chiefly that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine not only be
guarded but also shine forth more clearly, that the salvific work of the
Lord be spread through the whole world and that the Gospel be extended
to all the earth,” Pope Francis added.
“Heeding indeed the same Spirit, Holy Church of this age even now
revives and reflects upon the most glorious Tridentine doctrine,” he
continued. “As a matter of fact, the ‘hermeneutic of reform,’ which Our
Predecessor Benedict XVI set forth in the year 2005 in the presence of
the Roman Curia, relates not less to the Tridentine than to the Vatican
Quoting Pope Benedict’s 2005 address, Pope Francis added, “In fact, this
manner of interpreting places under a brighter light one evident
property of the Church that the Lord Himself bestows on her: ‘she is
clearly one ‘subject’ which, with the hastening ages, grows and is
increased; nevertheless, she always remains the same. And so she is the
one subject of the sojourning People of God.’”
Pope Francis’s letter on the Council of Trent follows a letter, dated
October 7 and released November 12, in which he said that “the best
hermeneutics of the Second Vatican Council” has been done by Archbishop
“You have manifested this love [for the Church] in many ways, including
correcting an error or imprecision on my part – for which I thank you
from my heart –but above all it is manifest in all its purity in studies
done on the Second Vatican Council,” Pope Francis added in that letter.
In its description of Archbishop Marchetto’s The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council: A Counterpoint for the History of the Council, published in English in 2010, the University of Chicago Press states:
This important study by Archbishop Agostino Marchetto
makes a significant contribution to the debate that surrounds the
interpretation of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. Archbishop
Marchetto critiques the Bologna School, which, he suggests, presents the
Council as a kind of “Copernican revolution,” a transformation to
“another Catholicism.” Instead Marchetto invites readers to reconsider
the Council directly, through its official documents, commentaries, and
In a recent essay published in L’Osservatore Romano, Cardinal
Kurt Koch, the president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting
Christian Unity, wrote that the interpretation of the Council offered by
Archbishop Agostino Marchetto is more relevant than ever. Archbishop
Marchetto, wrote Cardinal Koch, has “taken up and deepened the
hermeneutic of reform supported by Pope Benedict XVI.” (Antipope Bergoglio echoes Antipope Emeritus Ratzinger, underlines continuity of Council of Trent, Vatican II.)
Yes, believe it or not, all manner of people are jumping up and down for joy over this, believing that the "papacy" of Jorge Mario Bergoglio is going to be a "continuation" of that of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.
I am sorry to be the party pooper once again, the fact is, however, that continuously denying the Catholic Faith is nothing to celebrate.
There is no need to provide the "laundry list" once again that can be found quite readily in Mister Asteroid Is Looking Pretty Good Right About Now or to rewrite Trying To Put Humpty Dumpty Back Together Again. I do want you, though, to keep in mind the reference to Kurt Koch, who has been serving as the counterfeit church of conciliarism's new Walter Kasper since July 1, 2010 (and Koch is in perfect "continuity" with Kasper), as it is very important to the conclusion of this brief commentary.
Purely for the sake of brevity, therefore, to illustrate the teaching of the Council of Trent and the Council of Florence on the inability of Jews to save themselves by means of adhering to the rituals and ceremonies of the Old Covenant that was reiterated by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943, before contrasting it with the heretical view of the conciliarists:
On the Inability of Nature and of the Law to justify man.
The holy Synod declares first, that, for the correct and sound understanding of the doctrine of Justification, it is necessary that each one recognise and confess, that, whereas all men had lost their innocence in the prevarication of Adam-having become unclean, and, as the apostle says, by nature children of wrath, as (this Synod) has set forth in the decree on original sin,-they were so far the servants of sin, and under the power of the devil and of death, that not the Gentiles only by the force of nature, but not even the Jews by the very letter itself of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated, or to arise, therefrom; although free will, attenuated as it was in its powers, and bent down, was by no means extinguished in them.
On the dispensation and mystery of Christ's advent.
Whence it came to pass, that the heavenly Father, the father of mercies and the God of all comfort, when that blessed fulness of the time was come, sent unto men, Jesus Christ, His own Son-who had been, both before the Law, and during the time of the Law, to many of the holy fathers announced and promised-that He might both redeem the Jews who were under the Law, and that the Gentiles, who followed not after justice, might attain to justice, and that all men might receive the adoption of sons. Him God hath proposed as a propitiator, through faith in his blood, for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world.
Who are justified through Christ.
But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated. For as in truth men, if they were not born propagated of the seed of Adam, would not be born unjust,-seeing that, by that propagation, they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own,-so, if they were not born again in Christ, they never would be justified; seeing that, in that new birth, there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace whereby they are made just. For this benefit the apostle exhorts us, evermore to give thanks to the Father, who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light, and hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the Kingdom of the Son of his love, in whom we have redemption, and remission of sins. (Council of Trent, Decree on Justification, January 13, 1547. See The Sixth Session for an online source for each of the decrees of the Council of Trent.)
It [the Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of
the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites,
sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify
something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship
at that time, after our Lord's coming had been signified by them,
ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever,
even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and
submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in
Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet
it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the
promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were
believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the
promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed
without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who
after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other
requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and
not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday
they recover from these errors. Therefore, it commands all who glory in
the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism, to
cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope
in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal
salvation. Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which
can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another
remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are
snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of
God, it advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or
eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people,
but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently, but
so ,that, when danger of death is imminent, they be baptized in the form
of the Church, early without delay, even by a layman or woman, if a
priest should be lacking, just as is contained more fully in the decree
of the Armenians. . . .
It firmly believes, professes, and
proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only
pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become
participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire
which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless
before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that
the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those
remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for
salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and
exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one,
whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the
name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and
unity of the Catholic Church. (Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, February 4, 1442.)
28.That He completed His work on the gibbet of the
Cross is the unanimous teaching of the holy Fathers who assert that the
Church was born from the side of our Savior on the Cross like a new Eve,
mother of all the living. 
"And it is now," says the great St. Ambrose, speaking of the pierced
side of Christ, "that it is built, it is now that it is formed, it is
now that is .... molded, it is now that it is created . . . Now it is
that arises a spiritual house, a holy priesthood."  One who reverently examines this venerable teaching will easily discover the reasons on which it is based.
29.And first of all, by the death of our
Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been
abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries,
enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole
world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine
Savior was preaching in a restricted area -- He was not sent but to the
sheep that were lost of the house of Israel  -the Law and the Gospel were together in force;  but on the gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees,  fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross,  establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. 
"To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the
Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the
Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one
Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the
innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently
from top to bottom." 
30. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death,  in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; 
and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family
in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that
our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head in His Church.
"For it was through His triumph on the Cross," according to the teaching
of the Angelic and Common Doctor, "that He won power and dominion over
the gentiles"; 
by that same victory He increased the immense treasure of graces,
which, as He reigns in glory in heaven, He lavishes continually on His
mortal members it was by His blood shed on the Cross that God's anger
was averted and that all the heavenly gifts, especially the spiritual
graces of the New and Eternal Testament, could then flow from the
fountains of our Savior for the salvation of men, of the faithful above
all; it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into
possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical
Body; for they would not have been united to this Mystical Body. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)
No "rupture," right?
Contrast the teaching of the Catholic Church cited just above with that of the aforementioned Kurt Koch's remarks in 2012 that referenced Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's 1980 statement that the Old Covenant had never been revoked:
Declaration of the Second Vatican Council on Judaism, that is the
fourth Article of “Nostra aetate”, stood, as has surely become clear, in
a decidedly theological framework. That is not meant to claim that all
theological questions which arise in the relationship of Christianity
and Judaism were solved there. They did receive there a promising
stimulus, but require further theological reflection. That is also
indicated by the fact that this Council document, unlike all other texts
of the Second Vatican Council, could not in its notes refer back to
preceding doctrinal documents and decisions of previous councils. Of
course there had been earlier magisterial texts which focussed on
Judaism, but “Nostra aetate” provides the first theological overview of
the relationship of the Catholic Church to the Jews.
Because it was
such a breakthrough, the Council text is not infrequently
over–interpreted, and things are read into it which it does not in fact
contain. To name an important example: That the covenant that God made
with his people Israel persists and is never invalidated – although this
confession is true – cannot be read into “Nostra aetate”. This
statement was instead first made with full clarity by Pope John Paul II
when he said during a meeting with Jewish representatives in Mainz on 17
November 1980 that the Old Covenant had never been revoked by God: “The
first dimension of this dialogue, namely the encounter between God’s
people of the Old Covenant which has never been revoked by God and that
of the New Covenant is at the same time a dialogue within our church, as
it were between the first and second book of her bible.”
statement too has given rise to misunderstandings, for example the
implication that if the Jews remain in a valid covenant relationship
with God, there must be two different ways of salvation, namely the
Jewish path of salvation without Christ and the path of salvation for
all other people, which leads through Jesus Christ. As obvious as this
answer seems to be at first glance, it is not able to solve
satisfactorily at least the highly complex theological question how the
Christian belief in the universal salvific significance of Jesus Christ
can coherently be conceptually combined with the equally clear
conviction of faith in the never–revoked covenant of God with Israel.
That the church and Judaism cannot be represented as “two parallel ways
to salvation”, but that the church must “witness to Christ as the
Redeemer for all” was established already in the second document
published by the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the
Jews in 1985. The Christian faith stands or falls by the confession that
God wants to lead all people to salvation, that he follows this path in
Jesus Christ as the universal mediator of salvation, and that there is
no “other name under heaven given to the human race by which we are to
be saved” (Acts 4:12). The concept of two parallel paths of salvation
would in the least call into question or even endanger the fundamental
understanding of the Second Vatican Council that Jews and Christians do
not belong to two different peoples of God, but that they form one
people of God.
On the one hand, from the Christian confession there
can be only one path to salvation. However, on the other hand, it does
not necessarily follow that the Jews are excluded from God’s salvation
because they do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah of Israel and
the Son of God. Such a claim would find no support in the
soteriological understanding of St Paul, who in the Letter to the Romans
definitively negates the question he himself has posed, whether God has
repudiated his own people: “For the grace and call that God grants are
irrevocable” (Rom 11:29). That the Jews are participants in God’s
salvation is theologically unquestionable, but how that can be possible
without confessing Christ explicitly, is and remains an unfathomable
divine mystery. It is therefore no accident that Paul’s soteriological
reflections in Romans 9–11 on the irrevocable redemption of Israel
against the background of the Christ–mystery culminate in a mysterious
doxology: “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God!
How inscrutable are his judgments and how unsearchable his ways” (Rom
11:33). It is likewise no accident that Pope Benedict XVI in the second
part of his book on Jesus of Nazareth allows Bernard of Clairvaux to say
in reference to the problem confronting us, that for the Jews “a
determined point in time has been fixed, which cannot be anticipated”.
complexity is also attested by the re–formulation of the Good Friday
Prayer for the Jews in the extraordinary form of the Roman rite which
was published in February 2008. Although the new Good Friday prayer in
the form of a plea to God confesses the universality of salvation in
Jesus Christ within an eschatological horizon (“as the fullness of the
peoples enters your church”), it has been vigorously criticised on the
part of Jews – and of course also of Christians – and misunderstood as a
call to explicit mission to the Jews. It is easy to understand that the
term ‘mission to the Jews’ is a very delicate and sensitive matter for
the Jews because in their eyes it involves the very existence of Israel
itself. On the other hand however, this question also proves to be
awkward for us Christians too, because for us the universal salvific
significance of Jesus Christ and consequently the universal mission of
the church are of fundamental significance. The Christian church is
naturally obligated to perceive its evangelisation task in respect of
the Jews, who believe in the one God, in a different manner from that to
the nations. In concrete terms this means that – in contrast to several
fundamentalist and evangelical movements – the Catholic Church neither
conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed
towards Jews. In his detailed examination of the question of so–called
mission to the Jews Cardinal Karl Lehmann rightly discerned that on
closer investigation one finds “as good as no institutional mission to
the Jews in Catholic mission history”. “We have an abundant share in
other forms of inappropriate attitudes towards the Jews and therefore
have no right to elevate ourselves above others. But in respect to a
specific and exclusive ‘mission to the Jews’ there should be no false
consternation or unjustified self–accusation in this regard.” The
in–principle rejection of an institutional mission to the Jews does not
on the other hand exclude that Christians bear witness to their faith in
Jesus Christ also to Jews, but they should do so in an unassuming and
humble manner, particularly in view of the great tragedy of the Shoah. (Phony "Cardinal" Koch on Jewish-Catholic dialogue since Nostra Aetate.)
One can see in in "Cardinal" Koch's remarks just how
the conciliar doctrines, such as they are, have "evolved" from one to
the other, teaching us yet again that nothing is stable or secure in the
counterfeit church of conciliarism, including its doctrines,
which mutate over the course of time as the nature of error requires.
Front and center, obviously, in Koch's remarks is the
admission that Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's proclamation that the Old
Covenant had never been "revoked by God" was something "new" that was
contained in the the "Second' Vatican Council's Nostra Aetate,
October 28, 1965. In an incredible feat of illogic, Koch, repeating the
line that has been invented to justify Wojtyla/John Paul II's apostasy,
asserts that both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant exist in a
"dialogue' with each other. This is opposed to the dogmatic statements provided just above.
There is also another irony here.
How can a man who claimed that Nostra Aetate taught something "new" and that its teaching "evolved" to the point of Wojtyla/John Paul II's November 17, 1980, address in Mainz, Germany, now assert that there is no "rupture" between the "Second" Vatican Council and the teaching of the Catholic Church that preceded it?
Koch himself was merely transmitting a teaching on the "new relationship" with the "faith of Israel" that Ratzinger/Benedict himself heralded in his curia address on December 22, 2005, wherein he justified the "new" things of conciliarism by making advertence to the "hermeneutic of continuity:"
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.)
Something "new" does not represent a "rupture"?
Well, don't strain your brains too much on this one.
Remember, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI was "for" the "rupture" before he was against it:
What happened after the Council was
something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of
development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living
process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it--as in
a manufacturing process--with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot
product. Gamber, with the vigilance of a true prophet and the
courage of a true witness, oppose this falsification, and thanks to his
incredibly rich knowledge, indefatigably taught us about the living
fullness of a true liturgy. As a man who knew and loved history, he
showed us the multiple forms and paths of liturgical development; as a
man who looked at history form the inside, he saw in this development
and its fruit the intangible reflection of the eternal liturgy, that
which is not the object of our action but which can continue marvelously
to mature and blossom if we unite ourselves intimately with its
mystery. (Joseph Ratzinger, Preface to the French language edition of
Monsignor Klaus Gamber's The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, 1985.)
The prohibition of the missal that was
now decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the
centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church,
introduced a breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences
could only be tragic. It was reasonable and right of the
Council to order a revision of the missal such as had often taken place
before and which this time had to be more thorough than before, above
all because of the introduction of the vernacular.
But more than this now happened: the old building was demolished, and another was built,
to be sure largely using materials from the previous one and even using
the old building plans. There is no doubt that this new missal in many
respects brought with it a real improvement and enrichment; but setting
it as a new construction over against what had grown historically,
forbidding the results of this historical growth. thereby makes the
liturgy appear to be no longer living development but the produce of
erudite work and juridical authority; this has caused an enormous harm. For then the impression had to emerge that liturgy is something "made",
not something given in advance but something lying without our own
power of decision. (Joseph Ratzinger, Milestones, 1999.)
There is no contradiction between the
two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is
growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations
held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be
all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It
behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the
Church's faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless
to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the
communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of
principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total
exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the
recognition of its value and holiness (Explanatory Letter on "Summorum Pontificum," July 7, 2007.)
"Continuity" in conciliar doctrine, liturgy and pastoral praxis?
Only insofar as the rejection of Catholic truth is concerned. The conciliarists have been and continue to be completely consistent in that kind of "continuity," one of apostasy, blasphemy and sacrilege.
Consider the fact that a joint ceremony, replete with Talmudic prayers, was held on Tuesday, November 12, 2013, in the conciliar-occupied in Buenos Aires Metropolitan Cathedral in Buenos Aires, Argentina, to celebrate the seventy-fifth anniversary of Kristallnacht. In God's Holy Providence, however, a priest, Father Christian Bouchacourt. and a contingent of the lay faithful from the Society of Saint Pius X made sure to give a voice to Christ the King and His Most Blessed Mother, especially by means of praying her Most Holy Rosary, as this abomination was taking place.
Bergoglio, however, has seen fit to apologize for what he terms an "act of aggression" against the Talmudists with whom he has shared "prayers" and participated in their false services that are hideous in the sight of the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Holy Trinity, on number of occasions:
“Aggression cannot be an act of faith,” Pope Francis said in relation to a recent incident at the Buenos Aires Cathedral where members of the ultra-conservative Catholic breakaway Society of St. Pius X interrupted a memorial ceremony for the victims of the Nazi Kristallnacht pogrom in 1938. Francis made it clear that “preaching intolerance is a form of militancy that must be overcome.”
Latin American Jewish Congress Executive Director Claudio Epelman,
who is in charge of the World Jewish Congress’ relations with the
Vatican, was part of a delegation of six religious leaders from South
America who were received for a private audience with the Catholic
pontiff at the Vatican on Tuesday.
Epelman said after the meeting with the pontiff, with whom he established a close working relationship when Francis was still Cardinal Bergoglio,
the archbishop of Buenos Aires: “Pope Francis has already had a number
of meetings with leaders of other faiths, but he never fails to surprise
us with his sensitivity and the deep interest he shows for his
interlocutors.” Epelman praised Pope Francis for his message to the Jewish people on the 75th anniversary of Kristallnacht and his repeated clear and unequivocal condemnation of anti-Semitism.
Six members of the Latin American Committee of Religious Leaders for
Peace met with the Pope in the Santa Marta guesthouse at the Vatican on
Tuesday morning. As well as Epelman, Cardinal Raymundo Damasceno Assis from Brazil, Mohamad Hallar
of the Islamic Organization of Latin America, Samuel Olson of the Latin
American Evangelical Alliance, Felipe Adolf of the Latin American
Council of Protestant Churches, and Elias Szczytnicki, secretary of the umbrella body Council of Religious Leaders of Religions for Peace, took part in the meeting.
“With this meeting, the Pope has once again shown his strong, personal
commitment to building bridges between religions and to working together
with all of us to secure peace,” declared Epelman. ("Act of aggression" recent incident at Buenos Aires Cathedral.)
Defending the Holy Faith is considered to be "act of aggression."
No rupture here, right.
Ah, what happened two weeks ago tonight in the Buenos Aires Metropolitan Cathedral was nothing new as Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself had set the precedent for this when he was an auxiliary "bishop" there back in 1994 as he hosted the Masonic B'Nai Brith in the cathedral on a regular basis.
Argentine Catholic organizations wondered how it was possible that a
Jewish organization, also a lodge, might hold a memorial service in the
Cathedral of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires. The Archdiocese might have
helped out differently because of space problems. But why was a
liturgical space was made available in the presence of the Blessed
Sacrament of Christ Himself? As Cardinal Bergoglio was keynote speaker
at the event, it is clear who made the misappropriation, Pagina Catolica even speaks of the possible "desecration" of the Cathedral. In fact,
with the "memorial liturgy" a kind of worship was celebrated. Since the
event has been running for several years, there are already rehearsed
rites similar acts. Before the altar there sat several representatives
of Christian denominations (Lutheran, Prebyterianer, Methodist) next to
the Cardinal. The official program book with the symbol of B'nai B'rith
and the coat of arms of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires is called an
"Inter-religious Liturgy." Six candles symbolize in this Holocaust
memorial ritual each of the six million Jewish victims. Rabbi Alejandro
Avruj lit each candle along with the representative of a Christian
denomination or a Jewish organization. The last of the six candles he
lit together with Cardinal Bergoglio.
Cardinal Bergoglio has cultivated close contacts with B'nai B'rith with
an annual series of meetings and mutual invitations, where the cardinal
especially emphasized his praise for the social commitment of the Jewish
Lodge. For this reason, the Jewish representatives of the Grand Lodge
officially opened on the 19th of March at the inauguration ceremony of
Pope Francis in St. Peter's Square in part and the next day at the
reception for the religious leaders in the Vatican, including the
Director of B'nai B'rith-Committee for UN Affairs, David J. Michaels.
Under Archbishop Bergoglio it became customary in the Archdiocese of
Buenos Aires since 1994 that B'nai B'rith, performs its annual memorial
service held for the Jewish victims of Nazism in Argentina's Catholic
churches. In 2005, the Acto de Recordación de la Noche de los Cristales Rotos was held in the Catholic church of San Nicolas de Bari. Even then
Cardinal Bergoglio was present, as a photo of Rabbi Felipe Yafe shows.
In 2009 in the Catholic parish church of Santa Catalina de Siena, also
in the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires. In 2008 the memorial was on the 70th
Anniversary of Kristallnacht, also exclusively for Jewish victims of
the Shoah, in the Cathedral of Buenos Aires, in the presence of the
Israeli, German and Austrian ambassador. In 2007, the ceremony was held
in the San Ignacio Church of Buenos Aires.
After a meeting between Cardinal Bergoglio and Mario Wilhelm on the 4th
of June, the Argentine president of B'nai B’rith and Boris Kalnicki, who
is in B'nai B'rith responsible for inter-religious dialogue, said in a
press statement for the Jewish organization that the "traditional
commemoration of Kristallnacht" again will take place in 2012 and will
“include a generous cooperation of Cardinal." The event was organized
for the 8th November “at a church, decided at upon at a later time". It
was finally not just any church, but the Diocesan church itself. The
fact that the event takes place in a Catholic church, was self-evident
for B'nai B’irith.
In 2011 the place for the Kristallnacht commemoration was in the
cathedral church of the Diocese of San Isidro instead. For most of the
Diocesan Commission for Ecumenism and Interreligious Dialogue, B'nai
B'rith Argentina, an Argentine Jewish-Christian brotherhood and
fellowship Lamroth Hakol, organized to hold a commemoration on the 10th
November with texts by Rabbi Leon Klenicki and the Catholic theologian
Eugene Fischer for their own "Interfaith liturgy", "with witnesses,
songs and references to the night of the 9th November 1938 in Germany
and Austria, the 20th which is regarded as the beginning of the Jewish
Holocaust of the 20th Century or the Shoah." It was also the basis of
the "memorial liturgy" 2012.
The question is not why the Jews commemorate those events in Argentina.
But the question is, why is the Catholic Church in Argentina which is
not directly related to these events in faraway Europe 70 years ago
apply, which - as explicitly emphasized B'nai B'rith - by no means all
of the victims, but only the Jewish victims of National Socialism. Why then is this Jewish memorial to Jewish victims held in a Catholic church? ( B’nai B’rith “Memorial Liturgy” in the Cathedral of Buenos Aires With Apostate Bergoglio. The source of this is a sedeplenist website.)
We see here again the effects of the concilairism in the actual pastoral praxis of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.
We see here again yet another example of the condemned practice of treating Talmudism as a "valid" religion as no effort of any kind is made in seeking the conversion fo the Talmudists, something that contrasts very sharply with the example of
Saint Peter and that of Saint Vincent Ferrer, O. P., to say nothing of
that of the Mother of God herself as she sought the conversion of the
Catholic-hating Jew named Alphonse Ratisbonne (see the appendix below).
Yes, the crimes that were committed by the Nazis were
indeed atrocious. They were the result, however, of the precise
ideological efforts on the part of Talmudists over the preceding four
centuries to undermine and thus eclipse the role of the Catholic Church
in public life as they laid the groundwork for the very secular world
that Ratzinger/Benedict and Bergoglio/Francis and their conciliar officials consider to be a
"benefit" to "human rights" and "human dignity" and to "fraternity." The
Talmudic Jews of the post-Diaspora era made themselves the victims of
racialists who shared with them a hatred for the Holy Name of Our Lord
Jesus Christ and His Social Kingship over men and their nations. And no
crime committed by men against each other is the equal of the crime of
Deicide that our sins imposed upon Our King on the wood of the Holy
Cross, a crime for which the Jews of Our Lord's day are indeed culpable
as they knew Who He was and they preferred accommodation to caesar
rather than humbling themselves before their very God and Redeemer.
The Catholic Church can never make any terms with error:
As for the rest, We greatly deplore the fact that,
where the ravings of human reason extend, there is somebody who studies
new things and strives to know more than is necessary, against the
advice of the apostle. There you will find someone who is
overconfident in seeking the truth outside the Catholic Church, in which
it can be found without even a light tarnish of error.
Therefore, the Church is called, and is indeed, a pillar and foundation
of truth. You correctly understand, venerable brothers, that We speak
here also of that erroneous philosophical system which was recently
brought in and is clearly to be condemned. This system, which
comes from the contemptible and unrestrained desire for innovation, does
not seek truth where it stands in the received and holy apostolic
inheritance. Rather, other empty doctrines, futile and uncertain
doctrines not approved by the Church, are adopted. Only the most
conceited men wrongly think that these teachings can sustain and support
that truth. (Pope Gregory XVI, Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834.)
In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate.
It identifies Itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own
order, sovereign society, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and
which has for Its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the
Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the
Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption. It has preached
the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of Its blood, and strong in
the Divine assistance and of that immortality which has been promised
it, It makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the
commands which it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ
to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to
protect it in its inviolable integrity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)
For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in
order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that
they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men,
and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops
who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it
sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is
necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or
more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful
with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. (Pope
Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)
Say good night Jorge and friends. You belong to a church that is but a counterfeit ape of the Catholic Church.
Jorge, you are neither a true priest or a true bishop. You expelled yourself years from the bosom of Holy Mother Church years ago just as surely as the pro-abortion Catholics who are in completely good standing in your false church and, I should note to you as the supreme chaplain of the Knights of Columbus, are allowed to remain as members of the Knights of Columbus.
It is time for you, Jorge, and your fellow revolutionaries, to recognize the truth of the Church Militant in this time of apostasy and betrayal.
Bergoglio thus continues to err grievously when contending that the "Second" Vatican Council represents no "rupture" with Catholic teaching. There has been a rupture. The men responsible for it are apostates. They are not members of the Catholic Church. He is just another living proof of this fact.
It was a conciliar official, now deceased, who
recognized that the See of Peter would be vacant in the case of heresy
even though he, the late Mario Pompedda "Cardinal" Francesco, did not
believe that the situation obtained at the time that he spoke (in
February of 2005 as Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II was dying of Stage III
Parkinson's Disease). Yes, sedevacantism is the other
possibility, Father Pfluger:
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; see also see also Gregorius's The Chair is Still Empty.)
Unlike what many
traditionally-minded Catholics have heard from the theologians of the
Society of Saint Pius X, however, Pompedda was intellectually honest
enough to admit that sedevacantism is indeed a part of the canonical
doctrine of the Catholic Church. Only a handful of Catholics, priests
and laity alike, accepted this doctrine and recognized that it applied
in our circumstances in the immediate aftermath of the "Second" Vatican Council. I
was not one of them.
We separate ourselves from the
conciliarists because they offend God by defecting from the Faith,
starting with their rejection of the nature of dogmatic truth and their
making complex what it is: the knowledge of Him that He has deposited in
Holy Mother Church.
Although there are those who tell us that we should
"stay and fight" in once Catholic parishes that now in the hands of
apostates (or their enablers who refuse to speak out against them), we
must recognize that offenses against the doctrines of the Faith and
offenses against the moral order are never the foundations upon which
God will choose to restore His Holy Church. Truth in the moral order is
as black and white as truth in the doctrinal realm. Conciliarism
consists of its very nature in a rejection of various parts of the
Catholic Faith, and it is this rejection that leads in turn to the same
sort of despair and hopelessness in the souls of so many men now as
existed at the time before the First Coming of Our Lord at His
Incarnation and, nine months later, His Nativity.
We do not need to conduct a "search" for the "true meaning" of the doctrines contained the Sacred Deposit of Faith. We accept what has been handed down to us as docile children of Holy Mother Church.
We must remember at all
times because the crosses of the present moment, no matter their source,
are fashioned to us from the very hand of God Himself to be the means
of our participating in Our Lord's Easter victory over the power of sin
and eternal death. It matters not what anyone thinks of us for refusing
to accept the conciliarists as representatives of the Catholic Church or
for refusing to associate with those who believe act in a de facto
manner as the authority of the Church while looking the other way at
grave abuses of the moral order and indemnifying wrong-doers time and
time again. All that matters is that we carry our cross as the
consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through
the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, looking for no other
consolation than that which is given to the souls of the elect upon the
Particular Judgment and that is ratified for all to see at General
Judgment of the Living and the Dead:
Well done, good and faithful servant, because thou
hast been faithful over a few things, I will place thee over many
things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. (Matthew 25: 21.)
We never have to "understand" apostasy. We just have to recognize it and then flee from it.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saint Sylvester the Abbot, pray for us.
Saint Peter of Alexandria, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints
Our Lady Did What is Forbidden by Conciliarism: She Sought the Conversion of Jewish Man
From The Kolbe Reader: "The Conversion of Ratisbonne"
Introduction (from the editor and commentator of The Kolbe Reader):
St. Maximilian incorporated into several writings
the conversion to Catholicity of this remarkable French Jew, a wealthy
and dissipated worldling, a man who set his hand to a wholly different
way of life from the one he ultimately followed by the direct
intervention of Mary Immaculate. This particular version appears here
because it is the most exhaustive and touching and appeared in the May,
1924 issue of the Rycerz Niepokalanej (Knight of the Immaculate).
Maximilian's version is a "frame story." He told
the story of Ratisbonne to a group of people he encountered on a train
the previous month. The story is derived, almost word for word, from
documents published thirty-two years earlier. The paragraphs enclosed
within quotation marks are Ratisbonne's own words.
There are several reasons why the conversion of
this man looms large in Maximilian's thinking. The agnostic Jew was a
well-known "playboy" and his sudden change of heart evoked much wonder.
Our Lady's appearance to him in her role of the Lady of Grace whose
image appears on the face of the Miraculous Medal, the carrying of which
is one of the principal "means" recommended by Maximilian for Knights.
She is crushing Satan, the serpent, under her feet, which suggests the
woman of Genesis, the Immaculate Conception. Finally, Maximilian was
moved to found the M.I. as a Roman seminarian during his daily
meditation on the anniversary date of Ratisbonne's conversion, January
20. He would refer to Ratisbonne repeatedly in his words.
Reading (here follows the writing of Father Maximilian Kolbe):
Once again it happened on a train, on April 6,
1924. To tell the truth, that is a place where one can easily meet
persons with the most varied ideas. On the train I was relating the
story of Ratisbonne's conversion, when a gentleman--one of those who are
always ready to pronounce without proofs--observed ironically, "It's so
nice to hear you tell all this, Father!" I replied that I could show
him documentary proofs of the story, because just some days before I had
received from Rome a collection of these, printed in 1892.
Therefore I wish to publish some extracts from
these documents. To begin with, I shall give you same passages of a
letter written by Ratisbonne himself to a parish priest, the Director of
an Archconfraternity founded to pray for the conversion of sinners.
(After describing his family background, his
wealth, his engagement and the trip he made to the Orient before the
marriage--during which he stopped in Rome, despite the aversion he felt
for Catholic Rome--Ratisbonne described the efforts of Baron de
Bussieres, a zealous Catholic convert from Protestantism, to bring him
into the Church. This nettled Ratisbonne. here is how he relates the
visit he paid to Baron de Bussieres.)
"On entering M. de Bussieres' house I met with a
first disappointment, because the maid, instead of simply taking my
visiting card, immediately brought me into the parlor. As far as I
could, I tried to dissimulate my ennui behind a feigned smile, and I sat
down next to Baroness de Bussieres, near whom her two little daughters
were playing. The conversation began with the usual insignificant
topics, but soon I was displaying the passionate dislike with which I
described the impressions I had received in Rome. In a condescending
sort of way I considered Baron de Bussieres a devout person.
Consequently, because this was a favorable opportunity for me, I did not
refrain from some rather cutting remarks about the situation of the
Jews in Rome, which relieved my feelings somewhat. However, it was these
complaints of mine that brought the conversation around to religion. He
spoke to me of the greatness of Catholicism. But I answered
sarcastically with objections that I myself had read or that I had heard
from others. However, I restrained my impious assertions somewhat, so
as not to shock the faith of the little girls playing near us. Finally
M. de Bussieres said to me: 'Well, inasmuch as you condemn all
prejudices and profess such liberal principles, and because yours is
such an enlightened and advanced mind, would you be brave enough to
submit yourself to a harmless experiment?'
"'To carry about with you an object that I will
give you. Here, take this image of the most Blessed Virgin. That sounds
ridiculous to you, doesn't it? However, I consider it very effective.'
"I must admit that I had never expected such a
proposition. At first I felt like bursting out laughing and shrugging my
shoulders. But then I thought, 'What a splendid story this scene will
make in the account of my trip!' So I accepted the medal which was
placed around my neck. When I rested on my breast I laughed aloud and
said, 'Well, well! Now I am a Catholic! . . . Apostolic . . . and
"M. de Bussieres was genially triumphant over the
victory he had won, but wanting to exploit it to the full, he said,
'"Now, to complete the test, you must recite, morning and evening, the
Memorare, a very short, but very efficacious prayer to the most Blessed
Virgin, composed by St. Bernard.'
"But what on earth is this Memorare?" I exclaimed. Let's have done with all this mummery!
"At that moment I felt a great surge of vexation.
The name of St. Bernard made me remember my brother, who had written the
life of this saint. I had never been willing to take the book in my
hands. But his souvenir awakened my rage against proselytism, against
the Jesuits and against those whom I called hypocrites and apostates.
"So I begged M. de Bussieres to let it go at that,
and making a joke of the affair, I told him I was sorry that I could not
offer him even a single Hebrew prayer in return and that consequently I
would have to remain in his debt. The fact was that I did not know any
prayers at all. However, my adversary insisted that if I refused to say
this short prayer, the whole test would fail, and thus I would prove
that I was only an obstinate unbeliever. Since I attached no importance
whatever to the matter I finally promised to recite the prayer. He went
to get a copy of it right way and asked me to write it out. I agreed,
but on the condition that he would give me the original and keep my
handwritten copy. What I wanted to do in fact was to add to my notebook
the new 'pledge of justice.'
So we finally came to an agreement. At the end we
parted, and I spent the rest of the evening at the theater, forgetting
all about the medal and the prayer. When I returned to my lodgings,
however, I found a visiting card from M. de Bussieres, who had come to
return my visit. He invited me to stop at his house again before leaving
Rome. since I had to give the prayer back to him, after packing my
valises in view of my departure the next day, I sat down and copied the
prayer. It ran: 'Remember, o most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was
it known hat anyone who fled to thy patronage, sought thy aid, or
implored thy intercession w left unaided. Inspired by this confidence, I
fly to thee, O Virgin of Virgins, my Mother; to thee I come, before I
stand, sinful and sorrowful. O mother of the Incarnate Word, despise not
my petitions, but in thy mercy hear and answer me. Amen.'
"I wrote out the words of St. Bernard without
paying any attention to them. It was late; I was tired and was about to
fall asleep standing up.
"Next day, January 16th, I got everything ready for
my departure. But as I went about I found myself constantly repeating
the words of that prayer. My God, how had they taken such possession of
(Ratisbonne goes on to relate how M. de Bussieres
persuaded him to delay leaving so as to have a chance to see the Pope,
Gregory XVI. In the meantime he brought his guest to visit some of the
Christian antiquities, which gave him a chance ot discuss religious
"Everything our eyes beheld--monuments, paintings,
the local customs--became topics of conversation. All this led on to
various religious questions. M. de Bussieres brought them up so simply
and spoke of them so enthusiastically that sometimes in the depths of my
heart I thought 'If anything can turn a man aside from religion, it is
certainly the persistence some people show in trying to convert him!' My
natural irreverence led me to make fun even of most serious things. To
my barbed remarks I added an infernal fire of blasphemies, which I no
longer have the courage even to think of today. In spite of all this,
however, M. de Bussieres, while expressing his disappointment, remained
indulgent and calm. Once he even went so far as to say, 'In spite of
your irritation, I am sure that sooner or later you will become a
Catholic, because deep in your nature there resides a naturally
straightforward judgment, and this tells me that you will let God
enlighten you, even if he has to send an angel from heaven to do it.'
"All right," I replied jokingly, "but let it be when I am in a good mood; otherwise, the thing might off badly.
"As our carriage was passing near the Scala Santa,
M. de Bussieres stood up and doffed his hat, exclaimed, 'Hail,. O sacred
stairway! Here is a sinner who will mount you on his knees some day!'
"I cannot express what I felt at the idea of paying
homage to a stairway! I laughed heartily, as at something entirely
unreasonable. Later, as we were passing by the lovely villas and gardens
that lined the sides of Nero's aqueduct, I too raised my voice, and
using the same words as he, I exclaimed, 'Hail, ye truly divine marvels!
Before you one should bow his head and not before a staircase of
(Ratisbonne continues with the story of his meeting
with some Protestant friends on January 20th, in a cafe where they were
reading the papers.)
"As I left the cafe, I meet M. de Bussieres'
carriage, and he invited me for a ride. As it was a beautiful day, I
willingly accepted. When we got to the church of Saint' Andrea delle
Fratte, M. de Bussieres excused himself for a moment, because he had an
errand to run. He asked me to wait for him in the vehicle; but instead I
preferred to get down and visit the church. Within they were preparing a
catafalque for a funeral, so I asked the Baron, 'Whose funeral is it?'
"'The Count de Laferronays',' he replied, 'a good
friend of mine who died suddenly. That is why you may have found me
rather glum these last couple of days.'
"I did not know the count; had never seen him in
fact. So the news did not make any special impression on me, beyond that
produced by the information about a sudden death. M. de Bussieres left
because he had to see about preparing the place where the family of the
deceased would sit. 'Excuse me me for a few minutes,' he said, as he
went into the monastery. 'I shall be back shortly.'
(On February 18th and 19th, in the deposition he
made during the investigative process set up to make clear the
circumstances of his conversion. Ratisbonne stated the following among
"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." (Father Anselm W.
Romb, OFM Conv., Commentator and Editor, The Writings of St. Maximilian
M. Kolbe, OFM Conv.: The Kolbe Reader, pp. 22-31.)