Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
May 31, 2010

Forever Prowling The World Seeking The Ruin Of Souls

Part 2

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Walter "Cardinal" Kasper, the President of the "Pontifical" Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the head of the Commission for Relations with the Jews, was very, very busy when he was in merry old England a few days ago now. Apart from delivering a "homily" at the "Liverpool Anglican Cathedral" in Liverpool, England, that was the subject of Forever Prowling the World Seeking the Ruin of Souls, part 1, which was an elegy of praise for false ecumenism that contained one abject denial of the Catholic Faith after another, Kasper scheduled a visit on Whit Monday, May 24, 2010, to address one of his other favorite topics, relations with adherents of the Talmud, at Liverpool Hope University, a Catholic college that is, of course, currently under the control of the conciliarists.

Kasper's address contained his usual apostate comments concerning conciliarism's revised view of the false religion of Talmudic Judaism. It also contained a very interesting set of remarks designed to defend the conciliar process of "beatifying" our last true pope, Pope Pius XII, by explaining the praise that was accorded Pope Pius XII by many Jews in his lifetime for his record of saving European Jewry during World War II while at the same time implying that Pope Pius XII's "diplomatic nature" caused him to act in a more cautious manner than some other person may have done. Indeed, Kasper bluntly said that that even if Pope Pius XII was "beatified" by his own false church, the conciliar church, that historians could still argue about his wartime record and whether someone with a different personality would have acted differently. The hubris of these conciliarists is astounding:

The fundamental question is the debate between those would have preferred a more prophetic statement and those who agree with the Pope’s attitude of prudent judgement. Pius XII was not a man of prophetic gestures; he was a diplomat and decided not to be silent but to be moderated in his public statements because he knew that stronger words would improve absolutely nothing; on the contrary, they would provoke brutal revenge and worsen the situation. Therefore he decided not so much to act through words but to help practically as much he could. In this way alone in Rome he saved thousands of Jewish lives.

This was a decision of conscience in an extreme historical situation, which has to be pondered regarding the then given situation, the then available information and the then given possibilities and not from the insights and possibilities of today. This point is important for the question of an eventual beatification. In the case that it proceeds, it will not be an historical assessment but a spiritual discernment, whether this Pope in his situation followed his personal conscience and did the will of God as he understood it in his situation. So an eventual beatification would not preclude further historical research and interpretation nor would it exclude the assessment that other people with a different character may have come to different conclusions and may have acted in a different way. (Clicking on this link, Text of Kasper Address, will result in your having to download the text into your computer in order to view it. You can't view it otherwise? Won't it be great to have to your own personal copy of a Walter Kasper talk in your computer? The numbers of the readers of this site may be relatively small. I do go to such extra lengths, however, to try to bring to smile, if not a laugh, to you.)


Sure, another man with a different personality who sat on the Throne of Saint Peter might have acted differently during World War.

Another man with a different personality who sat on the Throne of Saint Peter might not have appointed Fathers Annibale Bugnini, C.M., and Ferdinando Antonelli, O.F.M., to start the process that would lead to the full-fledged Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service in 1969.

Another man with a different personality who sat on the Throne of Saint Peter might have excommunicated the likes of Fathers Hans Urs von Balthasar and Henri de Lubac and Karl Rahner and even the young Joseph Ratzinger once he had revealed himself to be a disciple of the "New Theology" early into his priesthood.

Another man with a different personality who sat on the Throne of Saint Peter might have removed the honorific title of "monsignor" from one Giovanni Montini after learning that he was being blackmailed by Soviet agents into betraying priests sent behind the Iron Curtain rather than appointing him as the Archbishop of Milan.

Another man with a different personality who sat on the Throne of Saint Peter might not have elevated Angelo Roncalli and Augustin Bea to the College of Cardinals. We are still suffering today the results of Pope Pius XII's personnel decisions, which have done far more damage to souls worldwide--and thus to social order--than his decision to refrain from condemning the Third Reich of Adolf Hitler in the explicit terms desired by some adherents of the Talmud today.

God's Providence is what it is. Eugenio Maria Giuseppe Giovanni Pacelli was the very man for whom it was in God's Holy Providence to serve as the Vicar of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as Pope Pius XII from March 2, 1939, to October 9, 1958. It is utter sophistry to contend that the large assembly of facts, summarized pretty thoroughly and fairly accurately (there was one slight omission to be discussed in a moment) by Walter Kasper in his Liverpool Hope University address of a week ago now, defending the record of Pope Pius XII during World War II can somehow be mitigated by the conclusions reached by others or that "other people with a different character" "may have acted in a different way." Kasper thus winds up minimizing the massive amount of evidence exonerating Pope Pius XII's wartime record during World War II by saying that, ultimately, it's all a matter of "interpretation" and "assessment" by those who engage in historical research.

Hey, you, "Cardinal" Kasper: the record is clear. Further research, which the Catholic Church always welcomes as she is guided alone by Truth Himself, while welcomed if pursued by those with intellectual honesty, into Pope Pius XII's wartime record can never undo the honors that were accorded him in his own lifetime for what he did and said in behalf of saving the lives of innocent human beings and of denouncing the atheistic, gnostic and occult forces that were at work in the world, staring with his first encyclical letter, Summi Pontificatus, October 10, 1939:


Venerable Brethren, as We write these lines the terrible news comes to Us that the dread tempest of war is already raging despite all Our efforts to avert it. When We think of the wave of suffering that has come on countless people who but yesterday enjoyed in the environment of their homes some little degree of well-being, We are tempted to lay down Our pen. Our paternal heart is torn by anguish as We look ahead to all that will yet come forth from the baneful seed of violence and of hatred for which the sword today ploughs the blood-drenched furrow.

But precisely because of this apocalyptic foresight of disaster, imminent and remote, We feel We have a duty to raise with still greater insistence the eyes and hearts of those in whom there yet remains good will to the One from Whom alone comes the salvation of the world - to One Whose almighty and merciful Hand can alone calm this tempest - to the One Whose truth and Whose love can enlighten the intellects and inflame the hearts of so great a section of mankind plunged in error, selfishness, strife and struggle, so as to give it a new orientation in the spirit of the Kingship of Christ.

Perhaps - God grant it - one may hope that this hour of direct need may bring a change of outlook and sentiment to those many w ho, till now, have walked with blind faith along the path of popular modern errors unconscious of the treacherous and insecure ground on which they trod. Perhaps the many who have not grasped the importance of the educational and pastoral mission of the Church will now understand better her warnings, scouted in the false security of the past. No defense of Christianity could be more effective than the present straits. From the immense vortex of error and anti-Christian movements there has come forth a crop of such poignant disasters as to constitute a condemnation surpassing in its conclusiveness any merely theoretical refutation.

Hours of painful disillusionment are often hours of grace - "a passage of the Lord" (cf. Exodus xii. 11), when doors which in other circumstances would have remained shut, open at Our Savior's words: "Behold, I stand at the gate and knock" (Apocalypse iii. 20). God knows that Our heart goes out in affectionate sympathy and spiritual joy to those who, as a result of such painful trials, feel within them an effective and salutary thirst for the truth, justice and peace of Christ. But for those also for whom as yet the hour of light from on high has not come, Our heart knows only love, Our lips move only in prayer to the Father of Light that He may cause to shine in their hearts, indifferent as yet or hostile to Christ, a ray of that Light which once transformed Saul into Paul; of that Light which has shown its mysterious power strongest in the Times New Roman of greatest difficulty for the Church.

A full statement of the doctrinal stand to be taken in face of the errors of today, if necessary, can be put off to another time unless there is disturbance by calamitous external events; for the moment We limit Ourselves to some fundamental observations.

The present age, Venerable Brethren, by adding new errors to the doctrinal aberrations of the past, has pushed these to extremes which lead inevitably to a drift towards chaos. Before all else, it is certain that the radical and ultimate cause of the evils which We deplore in modern society is the denial and rejection of a universal norm of morality as well for individual and social life as for international relations; We mean the disregard, so common nowadays, and the forgetfulness of the natural law itself, which has its foundation in God, Almighty Creator and Father of all, supreme and absolute Lawgiver, all-wise and just Judge of human actions. When God is hated, every basis of morality is undermined; the voice of conscience is stilled or at any rate grows very faint, that voice which teaches even to the illiterate and to uncivilized tribes what is good and what is bad, what lawful, what forbidden, and makes men feel themselves responsible for their actions to a Supreme Judge.

The denial of the fundamentals of morality had its origin, in Europe, in the abandonment of that Christian teaching of which the Chair of Peter is the depository and exponent. That teaching had once given spiritual cohesion to a Europe which, educated, ennobled and civilized by the Cross, had reached such a degree of civil progress as to become the teacher of other peoples, of other continents. But, cut off from the infallible teaching authority of the Church, not a few separated brethren have gone so far as to overthrow the central dogma of Christianity, the Divinity of the Savior, and have hastened thereby the progress of spiritual decay.

The Holy Gospel narrates that when Jesus was crucified "there was darkness over the whole earth" (Matthew xxvii. 45); a terrifying symbol of what happened and what still happens spiritually wherever incredulity, blind and proud of itself, has succeeded in excluding Christ from modern life, especially from public life, and has undermined faith in God as well as faith in Christ. The consequence is that the moral values by which in other times public and private conduct was gauged have fallen into disuse; and the much vaunted civilization of society, which has made ever more rapid progress, withdrawing man, the family and the State from the beneficent and regenerating effects of the idea of God and the teaching of the Church, has caused to reappear, in regions in which for many centuries shone the splendors of Christian civilization, in a manner ever clearer, ever more distinct, ever more distressing, the signs of a corrupt and corrupting paganism: "There was darkness when they crucified Jesus" (Roman Breviary, Good Friday, Response Five).

Many perhaps, while abandoning the teaching of Christ, were not fully conscious of being led astray by a mirage of glittering phrases, which proclaimed such estrangement as an escape from the slavery in which they were before held; nor did they then foresee the bitter consequences of bartering the truth that sets free, for error which enslaves. They did not realize that, in renouncing the infinitely wise and paternal laws of God, and the unifying and elevating doctrines of Christ's love, they were resigning themselves to the whim of a poor, fickle human wisdom; they spoke of progress, when they were going back; of being raised, when they groveled; of arriving at man's estate, when they stooped to servility. They did not perceive the inability of all human effort to replace the law of Christ by anything equal to it; "they became vain in their thoughts" (Romans i. 21).

With the weakening of faith in God and in Jesus Christ, and the darkening in men's minds of the light of moral principles, there disappeared the indispensable foundation of the stability and quiet of that internal and external, private and public order, which alone can support and safeguard the prosperity of States.

It is true that even when Europe had a cohesion of brotherhood through identical ideals gathered from Christian preaching, she was not free from divisions, convulsions and wars which laid her waste; but perhaps they never felt the intense pessimism of today as to the possibility of settling them, for they had then an effective moral sense of the just and of the unjust, of the lawful and of the unlawful, which, by restraining outbreaks of passion, left the way open to an honorable settlement. In Our days, on the contrary, dissensions come not only from the surge of rebellious passion, but also from a deep spiritual crisis which has overthrown the sound principles of private and public morality. (Pope Pius XII, Summi Pontificatus, October 10, 1939.)


As Pope Pius XI had done before him during the "inter-war" period of his pontificate (1922-1939), Pope Pius XII identified the root causes of the problems plaguing Europe at the outset of World War II: the rejection of the true Faith as the foundation of personal and social order by the formerly Catholic nations of once proudly Catholic Europe. Conciliarists such as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Walter "Cardinal" Kasper have made their "reconciliation" with the "principles" of the "new era inaugurated in 1789" without understanding that their acceptance of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King and the separation of Church and State is what has made their efforts to retard what they call the "dictatorship of relativism" almost impossible as they refuse to admit the Catholicism is the absolutely one and only foundation of personal and social order and as they are believers in a theological relativism as a result of their firm, boldly proclaimed lifelong rejection of Scholasticism.

Always Proceeding From False, Self-Serving Premises

Then again, of course, the conciliarists almost always proceed from false, serving premises.

Ratzinger/Benedict tells us constantly about the "crisis of modern man," which is nothing other than a figment of his own imagination as there no such thing as "modern man," only individual men suffering from the effects (if not being in actual captivity to) Original and their own Actual Sins who refuse to live in accord with the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. Yet it is that this nonexistent "crisis of modern man" has been used as the pretext to "re-think" how the "church" "speaks" to "modern man" in "terms" that he would be better able to understand. This is an important part of the justification of Modernism and its off-springs, the New Theology and conciliarism. "Modern man" simply can't accept the way that the Church's immutable teaching was expressed in the past. A way must be found to "appeal" to a consciousness that is "different."

Pope Pius XII described this approach very succinctly in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950:

Moreover they assert that when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern needs, that will permit of dogma being expressed also by the concepts of modern philosophy, whether of immanentism or idealism or existentialism or any other system. Some more audacious affirm that this can and must be done, because they hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression to divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say. They add that the history of dogmas consists in the reporting of the various forms in which revealed truth has been clothed, forms that have succeeded one another in accordance with the different teachings and opinions that have arisen over the course of the centuries.

It is evident from what We have already said, that such tentatives not only lead to what they call dogmatic relativism, but that they actually contain it. The contempt of doctrine commonly taught and of the terms in which it is expressed strongly favor it. Everyone is aware that the terminology employed in the schools and even that used by the Teaching Authority of the Church itself is capable of being perfected and polished; and we know also that the Church itself has not always used the same terms in the same way. It is also manifest that the Church cannot be bound to every system of philosophy that has existed for a short space of time. Nevertheless, the things that have been composed through common effort by Catholic teachers over the course of the centuries to bring about some understanding of dogma are certainly not based on any such weak foundation. These things are based on principles and notions deduced from a true knowledge of created things. In the process of deducing, this knowledge, like a star, gave enlightenment to the human mind through the Church. Hence it is not astonishing that some of these notions have not only been used by the Oecumenical Councils, but even sanctioned by them, so that it is wrong to depart from them.


This is important to bear in mind when considering Walter "Cardinal" Kasper's remarks at Liverpool Hope University a week ago now as the president of the "Pontifical" Council for Promoting Christian Unity and of the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews proceeded to base his entire set of remarks on the false premise that the entire history of Christian-Jewish relations has been characterized by a "conflict" that has, at least to some extent, been "overcome" in the forty-five years since the "Second" Vatican Council approved Nostra Aetate, on October 28, 1965:

As everybody knows the history of Jewish–Christian relations is complex and difficult, going back to the beginnings of the Church in the first century AD. The early Christian community in Jerusalem still took part in the prayers in the Temple and was highly esteemed; in fact, the apostle Paul in his missionary trips always went first to the synagogues and only after to the pagans. But the rift between Jews and Christians and the schism between Jews and the one Church of Jews and Gentiles had already arisen in the first century, especially after the destruction of the second Temple by the Romans in the year 70. This history has also seen positive times, such as when bishops took Jews under their protection against pogroms by mobs, but there have been dark times that have been especially imprinted upon the collective Jewish consciousness.

Such theologically founded anti–Judaism and such pogroms are to be distinguished from the primitive racial anti–Semitism which developed in the 19th century, leading to the Nazi ideology and culminating in the brutal – historically without comparison – crimes of the Shoah, the state-sponsored organized murder of approximately six million European Jews, which is the absolute low point in this history. The Holocaust cannot be attributed to Christianity as such, since it also had clear anti–Christian features. However, centuries–old Christian theological anti–Judaism contributed as well, encouraging a widespread antipathy for Jews, so that ideologically and racially motivated anti–Semitism could prevail in this terrible way, and the resistance against the outrageous inhuman brutality did not achieve the breadth and clarity that one should have expected.


This is a mother lode of fabricated history.

The "conflict" that divided Christians and Jews after the birth of Holy Mother Church and Pentecost Sunday and that continues to manifest itself today is not difficult to determine: the Jews rejected the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and mercilessly persecuted those who dared to proclaim His Holy Name and the truths of the Holy Faith, warning the Apostles and the first Catholics to refrain from mentioning the Holy Name of Our Blessed Jesus Christ ever again:

Then went the officer with the ministers, and brought them without violence; for they feared the people, lest they should be stoned. And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them, Saying: Commanding we commanded you, that you should not teach in this name; and behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and you have a mind to bring the blood of this man upon us. But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men. The God of our fathers hath raised up Jesus, whom you put to death, hanging him upon a tree.

Him hath God exalted with his right hand, to be Prince and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins. And we are witnesses of these things and the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to all that obey him. When they had heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they thought to put them to death. But one in the council rising up, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, respected by all the people, commanded the men to be put forth a little while. And he said to them: Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you intend to do, as touching these men.

For before these days rose up Theodas, affirming himself to be somebody, to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all that believed him were scattered, and brought to nothing. After this man, rose up Judas of Galilee, in the days of the enrolling, and drew away the people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as consented to him, were dispersed. And now, therefore, I say to you, refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this council or this work be of men, it will come to nought; But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to fight against God. And they consented to him. And calling in the apostles, after they had scourged them, they charged them that they should not speak at all in the name of Jesus; and they dismissed them.

And they indeed went from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were accounted worthy to suffer reproach for the name of Jesus. And every day they ceased not in the temple, and from house to house, to teach and preach Christ Jesus. (Acts 5: 26-42)


The Apostles and those who followed them were "esteemed" in the Temple? Go tell that to Saint Stephen, the Catholic Church's very own Protomartyr. And Saint Paul, who presided as Saul of Tarsus over the stoning of Saint Stephen, went on to explain how he had persecuted the Church fiercely:

I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

For I give you to understand, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For neither did I receive it of man, nor did I learn it; but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. For you have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion: how that, beyond measure, I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it. And I made progress in the Jews' religion above many of my equals in my own nation, being more abundantly zealous for the traditions of my fathers. But when it pleased him, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,

To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles, immediately I condescended not to flesh and blood. Neither went I to Jerusalem, to the apostles who were before me: but I went into Arabia, and again I returned to Damascus. Then, after three years, I went to Jerusalem, to see Peter, and I tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord. Now the things which I write to you, behold, before God, I lie not.

Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. And I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea, which were in Christ: But they had heard only: He, who persecuted us in times past, doth now preach the faith which once he impugned: And they glorified God in me. (Galatians 1: 6-24.)


Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ personally sought the conversion of Saint Paul as he was on the road to Damascus to persecute yet another set of Catholics living there. Jews persecuted Catholics from the very beginning solely because that hated the Holy Name of Jesus, a Name that those first Catholics would not renounce or to be silent about in any manner whatsoever. Try telling that to Walter Kasper.

The Jews of the Sanhedrin were in alliance with the Roman authorities that were occupying Palestine at the time. The Jews of the Talmud today are in alliance with the Roman authorities who are occupying ecclesiastical offices under false pretenses today. The Jews of the Sanhedrin did not want the Holy Name of Our Lord mentioned. The caesars and their minions did not want any religion to replace the false worship of the empire. Similarly, the false prelates of conciliarism do not want the true religion they have rejected to once again influence the lives of Catholics and to thus replace their synthetic religion that is leading to the One World Church. These false prelates are content to work behind the scenes as they use the Jews of the Talmud to disparage their most vocal critics, including those who recognize their ecclesiastical legitimacy and those who do not. It is no wonder that there is such bonds of affection between the leaders of the counterfeit church of conciliarism and many, although certainly far from all, adherents of the Talmud.

The "rift" between Jews and Christians is all about whether Our Lord Jesus Christ is God in the very Flesh. It was because He proclaimed Himself to be so that the high priest Caiphas, motivated in large measure by own our sins having transcended time, ordered Him to be handed over to Pontius Pilate so that the death sentence, which the Jews could not impose upon any man themselves, could be pronounced and carried out against Him. The "rift" between Jews and Christians did not occur because of some kind of misunderstanding. It was a continuation of the hatred of Divine Messias and His true religion by those who rejected His Sacred Divinity and hated the very mention of His Holy Name.

Kasper's efforts to link Catholic opposition to Judaism as a false, superseded religion with modern anti-Semitism is a case study of how Modernists must revise everything, including history itself, to suit their purposes, as Pope Saint Pius X noted so well in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.

Some Modernists, devoted to historical studies, seem to be deeply anxious not to be taken for philosophers. About philosophy they profess to know nothing whatever, and in this they display remarkable astuteness, for they are particularly desirous not to be suspected of any prepossession in favor of philosophical theories which would lay them open to the charge of not being, as they call it, objective. And yet the truth is that their history and their criticism are saturated with their philosophy, and that their historico-critical conclusions are the natural outcome of their philosophical principles. This will be patent to anyone who reflects.


The Catholic Church does oppose Judaism as it is a false religion that is hated by God.

The Catholic Church hates all false religions as they are hated by God, Who has commanded us to have no strange gods before Him. Period. The Mosaic Covenant was superseded when Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ breathed His last breath on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday and the curtain in the Temple in Jerusalem was torn in two from top to bottom as the earth quaked mightily. The destruction of the second Temple in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. was merely the solemn public proclamation of the end of Temple worship, the end of Judaism, after God, in His infinite Mercy and patience, gave the Jews an opportunity to respond to the preaching of the Gospel by converting. They responded with hatred toward the truth that was preached to them in love, with violence to those who preached that truth to them.

The Catholic Church seeks the good of all adherents of false religions in that she has a mission from her Divine Redeemer to seek with urgency their unconditional conversion to her maternal bosom, outside of which there is no salvation. She alone possesses the totality of the Deposit Faith. She alone is empowered to teach solely in the Holy Name of God. She alone has the means of sanctification that can help straying souls find their way to Heaven. Catholics love all men in that we will their good, both eternal and temporal. It is not to hate individual adherents of false religions to hate and to seek to obliterate by means of conversion those false religions in which they are steeped. Catholicism is and must be opposed to Judaism.

The last point to be covered from the passages of Kasper's Liverpool Hope University address concerns his mention of pogroms (mob uprisings) against the Jews at various times since the Middle Ages.

While it is true that some Catholics, refusing to forgive Jews for the offenses they had committed (among them being lying ad usurious practices in commerce as they were faithful to a Talmud that encourages deceitful practices to be used against the "goyim"), did, shamefully, seek to kill and to persecute Jews. Who condemned such persecution? Holy Mother Church did, and in no uncertain terms while at the same time noting the difficulties caused by the Jews and their efforts to insidiously undermine the Faith in places such as Poland where they had been welcomed. Pope Benedict XIV, writing in A Quo Primum, June 14, 1751, insisted that the very "inter-mingling" so desired by conciliarists in the name of "religious liberty" was a threat to the souls of Catholics and the very good of Catholic kingdoms:

The famous monk, Radulph, inspired long ago by an excess of zeal, was so inflamed against the Jews that he traversed Germany and France in the twelfth century and, by preaching against the Jews as the enemies of our holy religion, incited Christians to destroy them. This resulted in the deaths of a very large number of Jews. What must we think his deeds or thoughts would be if he were now alive and saw what was happening in Poland? But the great St. Bernard opposed this immoderate and maddened zeal of Radulph, and wrote to the clergy and people of eastern France: "The Jews are not to be persecuted: they are not to be slaughtered: they are not even to be driven out. Examine the divine writings concerning them. We read in the psalm a new kind of prophecy concerning the Jews: God has shown me, says the Church, on the subject of my enemies, not to slay them in case they should ever forget my people. Alive, however, they are eminent reminders for us of the Lord's suffering. On this account they are scattered through all lands in order that they may be witnesses to Our redemption while they pay the just penalties for so great a crime" (epistle 363). And he writes this to Henry, Archbishop of Mainz: "Doesn't the Church every day triumph more fully over the Jews in convicting or converting them than if once and for all she destroyed them with the edge of the sword: Surely it is not in vain that the Church has established the universal prayer which is offered up for the faithless Jews from the rising of the sun to its setting, that the Lord God may remove the veil from their hearts, that they may be rescued from their darkness into the light of truth. For unless it hoped that those who do not believe would believe, it would obviously be futile and empty to pray for them." (epistle 365).

Peter, abbot of Cluny, likewise wrote against Radulph to King Louis of France, and urged him not to allow the destruction of the Jews. But at the same time he encouraged him to punish their excesses and to strip them of the property they had taken from Christians or had acquired by usury; he should then devote the value of this to the use and benefit of holy religion, as may be seen in the Annals of Venerable Cardinal Baronius (1146). In this matter, as in all others, We adopt the same norm of action as did the Roman Pontiffs who were Our venerable predecessors. Alexander III forbade Christians under heavy penalties to accept permanent domestic service under Jews. "Let them not continually devote themselves to the service of Jews for a wage." He sets out the reason for this in the decretal Ad haec, de Judaeis. "Because Jewish ways do not harmonize in any way with ours and they could easily turn the minds of the simple to their own superstitions and faithlessness through continual intercourse and unceasing acquaintance." Innocent III, after saying that Jews were being received by Christians into their cities, warns that the method and condition of this reception should guard against their repaying the benefit with evildoing. "They on being admitted to our acquaintance in a spirit of mercy, repay us, the popular proverb says, as the mouse in the wallet, the snake in the lap and fire in the bosom usually repay their host." The same Pope stated that it was fitting for Jews to serve Christians rather than vice versa and added: "Let not the sons of the free woman be servants of the sons of the handmaid; but as servants rejected by their lord for whose death they evilly conspired, let them realize that the result of this deed is to make them servants of those whom Christ's death made free," as we read in his decretal Etsi Judaeos. Likewise in the decretal Cum sit nimis under the same heading de Judaeis, et Saracenis, he forbids the promotion of Jews to public office: "forbidding Jews to be promoted to public offices since in such circumstances they may be very dangerous to Christians." Innocent IV, also, in writing to St. Louis, King of France, who intended to drive the Jews beyond the boundaries of his kingdom, approves of this plan since the Jews gave very little heed to the regulations made by the Apostolic See in their regard: "Since We strive with all Our heart for the salvation of souls, We grant you full power by the authority of this letter to expel the Jews, particularly since We have learned that they do not obey the said statutes issued by this See against them" (Raynaldus, Annals, A.D. 1253, no. 34).

But if it is asked what matters the Apostolic See forbids to Jews living in the same cities as Christians, We will say that all those activities which are now allowed in Poland are forbidden; these We recounted above. There is no need of much reading to understand that this is the clear truth of the matter. It is enough to peruse decretals with the heading de Judaeis, et Saracenis; the constitutions of Our predecessors, the Roman Pontiffs Nicholas IV, Paul IV, St. Pius V, Gregory XIII and Clement VIII are readily available in the Roman Bullarium. To understand these matters most clearly, Venerable Brothers, you do not even need to read those. You will recall the statutes and prescripts of the synods of your predecessors; they always entered in their constitutions every measure concerning the Jews which was sanctioned and ordained by the Roman Pontiffs.


Obviously, no one is saying that such a decree can be enforced today or that it would be prudent even to attempt to do so as we do not live in a Catholic world and must, as the hand of God's Holy Providence has led us, seek the conversion of those who continue to deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and to persist in beliefs that are false and a worship that is, despite subjective intentions to the contrary, is of the devil as it is not of the true God of Divine Revelation.

What is useful about citing Pope Benedict XIV's A Quo Primum (which is, of course, not to be confused with Pope Saint Pius X's Quo Primum, whose four hundred sixtieth anniversary of issuance will be observed on July 14 of this year) is that it demonstrates that the very permissive attitude of Poland toward the ancient enemies of Our Lord and His true Church that was praised one week ago today by Walter Kasper was condemned by a true pope, who went to pains to condemn any kind of violent attacks upon the Jews or their places of worship. History is not on the side of the Modernist revisionist, Walter Kasper.

Moreover, Walter Kasper leaves out a little bitty fact that might prove to be just a tad bit inconvenient in his ecumaniacal work of selling out the Catholic Faith to Protestants: Martin Luther, who was a truly virulent anti-Semite, actually called for violence against the Jews and urged his "evangelicals" to persecute and kill Jews and to destroy their places of worship and their property. Heretics kill truth. Most of them have killed Catholics because they hate the truth. The hatred of the true Faith is founded in a hatred of God, which impels many men to treat unbelievers with contempt and disregard, refusing to show them any trace of the kindness and mercy of the Divine Redeemer Himself. Revolutions against the the Faith wind up shedding innocent human blood sooner rather than later.

There is a special irony in this as the hatred of Jews as individuals preached by the likes of Adolf Hitler was the result not of the Catholic Church's intractable opposition to Judaism as a false religion but of the ethos of hated against the true religion preached by Martin Luther and those who followed him, men and women who spread the poisons of anti-Catholicism in Europe to such an extent over the course of time that all manner of "intellectuals" began to reject all religion in favor of naturalism, plotting to gain civil power and then to persecute Holy Mother Church as happened during the French Revolution. That subsequent naturalist movements, each of which, including Nazism, was based on what the late Father Vincent Miceli called "anti-Theism" (see his The Antichrist), arose to attack various groups, including Jews, who were deemed to be responsible for the world's problems is all attributable, proximately speaking, to the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolution.

The Jews who were persecuted and killed by the agents of Adolf Hitler were the victims of the success of the Protestant Revolution and its overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King. They were also the victims of the efforts of many of their Jewish brethren, whether in or out of Masonic lodges, to eradicate all trace of the influences of Catholicism from social life in the formerly Catholic countries of Europe.

Walter Kasper is so blinded by Modernism that he cannot see this truth, no less admit it publicly, as it flies on the face of everything that he has been taught is the case. Thus it is that he must tar the Catholic Church for the sins of the Russian Orthodox and the Lutherans and others, not recognizing that the rise of secularism in Europe is the result of the over of Catholicism.

Repeat after, Walter: Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order. Repeat after me: Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order.

Ever Invoking The "Shoah" to Justify Heresy and Apostasy

Conciliarism's view of relations with the false religion of Talmudic Judaism has been shaped in large measure by the tragic events that took place during World War II that took the lives of large numbers Jews and Christians, although it is certainly true that the Jews were specifically targeted for arrest and persecution and execution because of their religious identity. The crimes committed by the Nazis were indeed atrocious, reprehensible, in full violation of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law and without any moral justification whatsoever. They were not, however, the "worst" crimes ever committed in human history.

The worst crime that ever took place in history was Deicide: our sins, having transcended time, put God in the Flesh to death on the wood of the Holy Cross as He atoned for our sins that had placed Him, Christ the King, on the Throne which remains for us the Tree of Eternal Life and the book of true learning. Nothing that has ever happened in history of man equals the crime of what our sins did to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in His Sacred Humanity as He suffered and died to redeem us by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood. Nothing any one person can suffer individual or any group of people can suffer collectively is the equal of what one of our least Venial Sins caused Our Lord to suffer in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death and caused His Most Blessed Mother's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart to suffer as It was pierced through and through with those Seven Swords of Sorrow.

No, Walter Kasper, the "Shoah" was not the "worst crime" in human history.

The "Shoah" was not even the "worst crime" imposed by statist, anti-Theistic regime of Modernity. One estimate, which some scholars believe understates the truth of the matter, puts the number of those killed by Communist regimes at over 100 million (61 million by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 35 million by the "People's Republic" of China, another ten to twelve million victims divided pretty equally among the following countries under Communist control: Poland, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, and Cambodia). This does not include the over one million Catholics killed by the Masonic revolutionaries in Mexico in the first three decades of the Twentieth Century or the nearly two million Armenians who were wiped out by the brutal, thuggish Mohammedans of Turkey during World War I in act of racial and religious genocide. Ah, yes, "Islam is a religion of peace." I forgot.

Mind you, the totals listed in this Table represented the number of people killed by statist regimes from 1900 to 1987. This does not even take into account the mass murders wrought by the Protestants during the Protestant Revolution (over 72,000 Catholics were put to death under King Henry VIII between the time he broke from Rome in 1534 to the time of his death in 1547) or the French Revolution. And, obviously, they do not take into account the thirteen million Catholics who were killed by the Caesars of Rome and their minions between the year 67 A.D. and the Edict of Milan in the year 313 A.D.

Taking nothing away from the humiliation and the suffering that Jews in Germany and elsewhere in Europe faced at the hands of the Nazis, their suffering was not the "worst" event, the "worst" crime in human history. Adherents of the Talmud today have exploited these events in order to extract from what they think is the Catholic Church an ever increasingly highly number of concessions so that all talk of seeking to convert the Jews or to oppose the false religion of Judaism is seen by the conciliar authorities as an exercise in rank anti-Semitism when it is nothing of the sort. Professional"holocaust" victimologists have made sure that the men they view as the ecclesiastical officials of the Catholic Church cleave to the Talmudic part line about the "holocaust," which has become for conciliarists the "irreducible minimum," to borrow a phrase, of what it takes to have "good standing" in its false structures.

Although my next article will examine the racialism and callousness of the Zionists who control the State of Israel that prompted the attack on the ship carrying humanitarian supplies for Palestinians in Gaza, an effort that was designed to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza, it is nevertheless true that that the events of World War II have been used by various adherents of the Talmud to demonstrate their deeply held belief that the spilling of Jewish blood is more horrible a crime than the spilling of the blood of others. Indeed, the Zionists in Israel have treated the Palestinians, who were thrown out of their own home and had their property seized from them in 1948 and have subjected to all manner of degrading conditions since that time, as the same sort of subhumans as the Jews and others, especially the Poles, were treated by the Nazis. The exploitation of the crimes of the Nazis during World War II has resulted in an endless effort to impose "guilt" on those deemed by some professional victimologists to knuckle under to whatever demands of made of them, which is why the lords of conciliarism have been so willing on most, although not all, occasions to play the fool for them in order to avoid being called "anti-Semitic"

Just look at how many, including Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Walter "Cardinal" Kasper, Sean "Cardinal" O'Malley, Roger "Cardinal" Mahony, et al., flailed away at Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of Saint Pius X for proffering, perhaps imprudently, his view of the extent of the crimes committed by the Nazis against the Jews during World War II. They huffed and they puffed. They gnashed their teeth and rent their garments.

These officials cast Bishop Williamson, who has yet to recognize that men who defect from the Faith have expelled themselves from the Catholic Church by virtue of violating the Divine Positive Law, into the outer darkness, where he has been kept by their willing client, Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X. "Archbishop" Robert Zollitsch, the president of the conciliar "bishops'" conference in the Federal Republic of Germany, has gone now four hundred fifteen days without a single word of censure from any of the aforementioned conciliar officials after having denied that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ died on the wood of the Holy Cross in atonement for our sins. A supposed "archbishop" can deny a basic article of the Catholic Faith remain in good standing in the conciliar structures. A "renegade" bishop must be excoriated for expressing a private opinion about a matter of secular history. Offenses to man mean more than offenses to God in the eyes of the conciliarists. Shouldn't that teach one anything?

Yet it is that Walter "Cardinal" Kasper believes that the "unprecedented crime of the Shoah" "changed" the "thinking" of the Catholic Church about its relationship to the Jews, whose conversion to the true Faith is near and dear to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary:

Unfortunately, it required the unprecedented crime of the Shoah for a fundamental rethinking to come about. This happened after 1945 in all the mainline churches. On the Catholic side the declaration of Vatican II, Nostra aetate, was the decisive turning point. Pope John XXIII can be considered to be the spiritual father of this declaration. As nuncio in Istanbul he had actively intervened to save many Jewish lives, and at the beginning of his Pontificate, after an historical visit of the distinguished Jewish scholar Jules Isaak, he asked the German cardinal Augustine Bea, also a renowned Biblical scholar, to prepare a Conciliar declaration on this issue, which was proclaimed after controversial discussions during the last session of the Council in 1965 by Pope Paul VI. It is – as Pope Benedict XVI made absolutely clear once again during his visit to the Roman synagogue on January 17, 2010 – irrevocable. It is irreversible because of the plain fact that the decisive theological arguments of the declaration Nostra aetate are firmly established in two higher-ranking Conciliar constitutions, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Nos. 6, 9, 16) and the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Nos. 3, 14).


What are "mainline churches"? What relevance does it make to the public sentence passed upon Judaism by God Himself in 70 A.D. with the destruction of the second Temple in Jerusalem by the Roman that "mainline churches" have had a "fundamental rethinking" of their relationship to Judaism? Are not Divine Truths immutable? How do churches that, each and every one of them, belong to the devil himself have anything to "teach" the Catholic Church about her relationship with those who adhere to the Talmud. Such is the topsy-turvy, upside-down, Alice-in-Wonderland-like world in which the conciliarists live that they can believe themselves to be faithful disciples of the Divine Messias and at the same time deny what He has entrusted to His true Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication.

Some might protest at this point that Walter Kasper is speaking for himself, not for Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. How anyone can assert this with a straight face at this late date is quite beyond me, especially since Ratzinger/Benedict has himself said that the "Shoah" changed the relationship between the "church" and the "faith of Israel:"


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)


No event of secular history can cause the Catholic Church to breathe new life into a false religion that is hated by God.

Although my next article will examine the racialism and callousness of the Zionists who control the State of Israel that prompted the attack on the ship carrying humanitarian supplies for Palestinians in Gaza, an effort that was designed to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza, it is nevertheless true that that the events of World War II have been used by various adherents of the Talmud to demonstrate their deeply held belief that the spilling of Jewish blood is more horrible a crime than the spilling of the blood of others. Indeed, the Zionists in Israel have treated the Palestinians, who were thrown out of their own home and had their property seized from them in 1948 and have subjected to all manner of degrading conditions since that time, as the same sort of subhumans as the Jews and others, especially the Poles, were treated by the Nazis. The exploitation of the crimes of the Nazis during World War II has resulted in an endless effort to impose "guilt" on those deemed by some professional victimologists to knuckle under to whatever demands of made of them, which is why the lords of conciliarism have been so willing on most, although not all, occasions to play the fool for them in order to avoid being called "anti-Semitic." Behold the evidence before our very eyes.


In All Catholicism There Is Absolutely Nothing On Which It Does Not Fasten

It remains for Us now to say a few words about the Modernist as reformer. From all that has preceded, it is abundantly clear how great and how eager is the passion of such men for innovation. In all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)


Modernists want to "reimagine," if you will, Catholic dogma for "modern" needs. This has been condemned repeatedly. Thus, I have a question for the reigning conciliar "pontiff:" What's to redefine about the relationship between the Catholic Church and those who adhere to the Talmud? What's to "evaluate and define in a new way"?

The Council of Florence's decree Cantate Domino, issued by the authority of Pope Eugene IV on February 4, 1442, has been overturned? By whom? When? Was not the decree, pasted below once again, guided in its proclamation by the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, Who is immutable?

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.)


Is this not Catholic doctrine that is as fixed and unchangeable as the very God Who has revealed It to Holy Mother Church? If so, how can the following statements made by Walter Kasper at Liverpool Hope University one week ago today be reconciled with any kind of truth, no less the immutable teaching of the Catholic Church?

In the past Israel was often collectively described as an accursed people cast off by God. This position since Nostra aetate is totally overcome. According to Saint Paul Israel is the divinely chosen and beloved people of the covenant, which was never revoked or terminated (Rom 9:4; 11.29). That is why it cannot be said that the covenant with Israel has been replaced by the New Covenant. The New Covenant for Christians is not the replacement (substitution), but the fulfilment of the Old Covenant. Both stand with each other in a relationship of promise or anticipation, and fulfilment. This relationship must be understood in the context of the whole history of the covenant. The whole history of God with his people takes place in a sequence of various covenants with Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Ezra; in the end, the prophet Jeremiah promises a new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31). Each of these covenants takes up the previous covenant and at the same time reinterprets it anew. Thus for us the New Covenant is the final reinterpretation promised by the prophets of the Old Covenant. It is the definitive yes and amen to all of God’s promises (2 Cor 1:20), but not their suspension or abolition.


The Old Covenant is dead. It has the power to save no one. The rites associated with it are not from God, which means they are from the devil. The position taken by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Walter "Cardinal" Kasper, derived from Nostra Aetate, is clear: the Jewish people have their own means of salvation that is parallel to that offered by the Catholic Church. They have told us so in their own words:

The postconciliar Vatican has not been altogether straightforward regarding the Jews' need for conversion. either. The fashionable doctrine these days--again, contrary to all prior papal teaching--is the claim that the Old Covenant that God established with the Jews, far from having been superseded by the New Covenant of Christ and the Church, is in fact still in effect. Thus we have John Paul II telling a Jewish audience: "The first dimension of this dialogue, that is, the meeting between the people of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God, and that of the New Covenant , is at the same time a dialogue within our Church, that is to say, between the first and second part of her Bible." "Jews and Christians," he went on to say, "as children of Abraham, are called to be a blessing to the world" by "committing themselves together for peace and justice among all men and peoples." Such statements seem impossible to reconcile with the Church's divine commandment to convert the Jews for the salvation of their souls. In fact, Cardinal Kasper, whom the Pope has also made the President of the Pontifical Council for Religious Relations with the Jews, has repudiated the conversion of Jews as explicitly as he has repudiated the return of the Protestant dissidents to the one true Church:

[T]he 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.... Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism, i.e., the faithful response of the Jewish people to God's irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises.... Thus mission, in this strict sense, cannot be used with regard to Jews, who believe in the true and one God. Therefore--and this is characteristic--there does not exist any Catholic missionary organization for Jews. There is dialogue with Jews; no mission in this proper sense of the word towards them. (Address at 17th meeting of the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee, New York, May 1, 2001, )


Once again, Kasper received no correction from the Pope or any Vatican dicastery On the contrary, he has received only a promotion to his current position of authority. What can one conclude but that the Vatican has de facto abandoned the conversion of the Jews, and the return of the Orthodox and Protestants to Catholic unity. (Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Great Facade, The Remnant Press, 2002, pp. 203-204; see also Eight Challenges to the conservative Neo-Catholics.)

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.)


A Talmudic rabbi, David Rosen, who is also a "papal knight." mind you, summarized the statements of the conciliarists very well in an address that he delivered at the Vatican in 2005, an address in which he dared to lecture on points of Catholic theology. Such is the madness of inter-religious dialogue:

The late Pope John Paul II described the Declaration “Nostra Aetate” that emanated from the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council as “an expression of Faith” and “an inspiration of the Holy Spirit, as a word of Divine Wisdom”.

Cardinal Walter Kasper, President of the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with Jewry has described the impact of Nostra Aetate as “an astonishing transformation”. Indeed in relation to the Jewish People the implications were truly revolutionary in the most positive sense of the word.  With the promulgation of this declaration, a people – formerly viewed at best as a fossil but more often as cursed and condemned to wander and suffer – was now officially portrayed as beloved by God and somehow very much still part of the Divine plan for humankind.

In his visit to the Rome synagogue in 1986, Pope John Paul II referred to the Jewish people as “the beloved elder brothers of the Church”. He developed this idea with his own notable formulation of the essential message of Nostra Aetate. One of the occasions on which I was privileged to meet with John Paul II was in Assisi in January 1993 on the occasion of the gathering he had convened for prayer for peace in the Balkans. In receiving me and my colleague, he declared “I have said, you (the Jewish People) are the beloved elder brother of the Church of the original Covenant never broken and never to be broken.

This phrase does not just reflect a transformation in attitude and teaching towards the Jews; it has profound implications for the Church in terms of its own theology

Indeed Pope Benedict XVI himself has said that the Church has not yet fully discovered all the profound implications of Nostra Aetate.  Part of the reason for this lies in the very novelty of the Declaration.  Cardinal Augustin Bea at the time of the declaration’s promulgation, emphasized its ground-breaking nature.  Cardinal Johannes  Willebrands, former President of the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with Jewry, elaborated on this idea further affirming that never before had such “a systematic, positive, comprehensive, careful and daring presentation on Jews and Judaism been made in the Church by a Pope or a Council”.

Moreover Catholic theologians such as Michel Remaud have noted that “of all the documents promulgated by the Second Vatican Council, that on the Jews is the only one which contains no reference whatsoever to any of the Church’s teachings – patristic, conciliar or pontifical". . . .

In keeping with Pope John Paul II’s statements, Cardinal Walter Kasper, President of the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with Jewry, stated in an address at Boston College, in November 2002, “This does not mean that Jews in order to be saved have to become Christians; if they follow their own conscience and believe in God’s promises as they understand them in their religious tradition, they are in line with God’s plan, which for us came to its historical completion in Jesus Christ”.

It seems to me that the 2001 document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission entitled, ‘The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible’, published under the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s imprimatur and with his introduction, is very much in keeping with this spirit, when it declares that “the Jewish messianic expectation is not in vain …. Like them we too live in expectation.” (Conference by Rabbi David Rosen, International Director for Interreligious Affairs of the American Jewish .)


Even one such as David Rosen, who denies the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, recognizes the incredible nature of a document by what purports to be the Catholic Church that makes no reference "whatsoever to any of the Church's teachings, patristic, conciliar or pontifical." This is, however, what typifies most of the "encyclical letters" produced by the conciliar "popes" as there are frequently almost no references to any source prior to the "Second" Vatican Council other than gratuitous "cf." (confer) references that usually mask a distortion of the words contained therein. (as is typical for the disciples of the "new theology," men who specialize in deconstructing the words of Sacred Scripture and of the Church Fathers).

Make no mistake about it, good and few readers, "Pope" Benedict XVI does teach these things himself, going so far as to blaspheme God by saying that Christians and Jews "pray to the same Lord." He has cited, as "Pope" Benedict XVI, his own Preface to The Jewish People and Their Scriptures in the Christian Bible the conclusions reached by the belief that a "Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one:"

5. Many lessons may be learned from our common heritage derived from the Law and the Prophets.  I would like to recall some of them: first of all, the solidarity which binds the Church to the Jewish people “at the level of their spiritual identity”, which offers Christians the opportunity to promote “a renewed respect for the Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament” (cf. Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Jewish people and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible, 2001, pp.12 and 55); the centrality of the Decalogue as a common ethical message of permanent value for Israel, for the Church, for non-believers and for all of humanity; the task of preparing or ushering in the Kingdom of the Most High in the “care for creation” entrusted by God to man for him to cultivate and to care for responsibly (cf. Gen 2:15). (Ratzinger at Rome synagogue: ‘May these wounds be healed forever!)


"Pope" Benedict XVI believes what he did as "Cardinal" Ratzinger, which he why he cited the following Preface in his talk at the Rome synagogue on January 17, 2010:

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.)


Apostasy. The "Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament" is blasphemous in that it denies that God the Holy Ghost, who inspired the words of Sacred Scripture, including the Old Testament, directed the human authors to write the books of the Old Testament with clarity so that they pointed unequivocally to the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity in Our Lady's Virginal and Immaculate Womb by His own power. And what in the world is "Israel"? The country? A way of referring to Talmudic Judaism? If it is the latter, Ratzinger/Benedict once again reaffirmed the validity of a false religion that is hateful in the eyes of God and that has the power to sanctify or save not one human being on the face of this earth.

Walter Kasper reiterated all of this in his lecture at Liverpool Hope University one week ago today:

In the past Israel was often collectively described as an accursed people cast off by God. This position since Nostra aetate is totally overcome. According to Saint Paul Israel is the divinely chosen and beloved people of the covenant, which was never revoked or terminated (Rom 9:4; 11.29). That is why it cannot be said that the covenant with Israel has been replaced by the New Covenant. The New Covenant for Christians is not the replacement (substitution), but the fulfilment of the Old Covenant. Both stand with each other in a relationship of promise or anticipation, and fulfilment. This relationship must be understood in the context of the whole history of the covenant. The whole history of God with his people takes place in a sequence of various covenants with Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Ezra; in the end, the prophet Jeremiah promises a new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31). Each of these covenants takes up the previous covenant and at the same time reinterprets it anew. Thus for us the New Covenant is the final reinterpretation promised by the prophets of the Old Covenant. It is the definitive yes and amen to all of God’s promises (2 Cor 1:20), but not their suspension or abolition.

The problem is not only the relationship of the Old and New Covenant, but the different problem of the relationship of the church and post–biblical Rabbinic and Talmudic Judaism, which arose only after the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70. The canons and structures of both were formed in parallel. Therefore the New Testament can give us no clear and above all no uniform answer to this question.

After the destruction of the Second Temple, a Rabbinic Jewish and a Christian interpretation of the Old Testament developed in parallel and in interaction, both based on their respective religious presuppositions. The document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible (2001), however, explicitly notes that both are possible interpretations of the Old Testament text (§22). In this regard, the statement of Nostra aetate receives its full weight, that the Jews, according to the testimony of the Apostle, “are still beloved of God for their fathers’ sake, for his gifts of grace are irrevocable.” So our Christian relationship to the Jews is for us – as Pope John Paul II put it on his visit to the Synagogue of Rome in 1986 – not only an external reality but belongs in a certain sense to the inner reality of our religion. We share a important common heritage. The Jews are “our elder brothers in the faith of Abraham”.

After the destruction of the Second Temple, a Rabbinic Jewish and a Christian interpretation of the Old Testament developed in parallel and in interaction, both based on their respective religious presuppositions. The document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible (2001), however, explicitly notes that both are possible interpretations of the Old Testament text (§22). In this regard, the statement of Nostra aetate receives its full weight, that the Jews, according to the testimony of the Apostle, “are still beloved of God for their fathers’ sake, for his gifts of grace are irrevocable.” So our Christian relationship to the Jews is for us – as Pope John Paul II put it on his visit to the Synagogue of Rome in 1986 – not only an external reality but belongs in a certain sense to the inner reality of our religion. We share a important common heritage. The Jews are “our elder brothers in the faith of Abraham”.


Walter Kasper is here expressing the mind of his fellow countryman, Ratzinger/Benedict perfectly. Unfortunately for them. however, that mind is not a Catholic one.

"The New Testament can give us no clear and above all uniform answer to the question concerning the "relationship" between Talmudic Judaism and Christianity?" The New Testament is clear, and we have Apostolic Tradition, which has been preserved intact by Holy Mother Church, to us it meaning. The Old Covenant has indeed been superseded.

For Kasper to be correct, therefore, Holy Mother Church, guided infallibly by God the Holy Ghost, got it "wrong" when pronouncing the words from Cantate Domino? Similarly,

Pope Saint Pius X had to have been "wrong" when he specifically used the word "superseded" when speaking with the founder of international Zionism, Theodore Herzl, on January 25, 1904:

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.


Kasper's repeated contention that canon of the New Testament and the customs that grew up within what he termed "post-Biblical" Judaism proceeded along the same paths at the same time. This is utter blasphemy against the Most Holy Trinity. Each of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament was inspired by God the Holy Ghost, Who did not give "part" of His spirit of truth to the Jews. Catholicism is true. Judaism is false, The conciliarists are simply incapable of making this statement as they do believe this is the case, demonstrating yet again that they have defected from the Catholic Faith. It is God the Holy Ghost Who guided Holy Mother Church's interpretation of the Old Testament just He guided her approval of the books of the New Testament.

To assert that we have just "discovered" the "true" meaning of Saint Paul's chapters in his Epistle to the Romans on the Jews is to blaspheme God and to spit on the Fathers of the Church who understood those passages perfectly.


Purely A Matter of Personal Choice

Walter "Cardinal" Kasper remarks at Liverpool Hope University the usual conciliar claptrap that it is up to individual Jews to convert to Catholicism if they choose to do so. That is entirely up to them. There is no necessity for them to do so in order to save their immortal souls. The apostate from Germany also believes that Catholics can convert to Judaism without peril to their immortal souls. It's all purely a matter of personal choice, nothing more, as we respect the "otherness" of our "partners" in ecumenical"dialogue" while acknowledging those things that divide us:

This brings me now to the fundamental problems between Judaism and Christianity which transcend the issues of the day, and to the different positions that are fundamental for both communities. This involves especially such key issues as the Christian confession of Jesus as the Christ (i.e., the Messiah) and the Son of God, which is directly related to the Trinitarian understanding of biblical monotheism, the universal salvific significance of Jesus and other similar questions.

Of course, there can be no question of dissolving the deep-seated differences on these issues in favor of some sort of syncretism, or of relativizing them. Most definitely, this discussion does not involve any covert proselytism. Rather, the basis for dialogue must be the realization that Jews and Christians differ on these issues and must respect and appreciate each other in their otherness. But precisely for the sake of mutual respect and appreciation, in the newly generated climate of trust it must be a primary goal to actively reduce old misunderstandings and develop possible approaches to understanding each other’s position  . . .

So as Christians we cannot deny the universality of Christian mission to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But we can and we must recognize that this universality can and must be applied in different ways to pagans and to Jews. Because Jews are not pagans, they believe in the one God and have therefore not to turn from false and dead idols to the true and living God (1 Th 1:9). This means that the command for mission is as valid for Jews as for pagans but it must be put into effect differently among Jews with respect to pagans.

This difference has not always been observed, and unfortunately there has been a history of forced conversions of Jews. In principle, though, and especially today the church takes this difference into account. In contrast to some fundamentalist evangelical movements which undertake missionary work, the Catholic Church sponsors no specific institutional missionary work aimed at Jews. This is more than a mere fact; it is an important ecclesial reality. This does not mean that the church and Christians should behave passively in the meantime and simply sit on their hands. The exclusion of a targeted institutional mission does not prohibit, but rather implies that Christians and the church are generally required to give Jews witness to their faith in Jesus Christ now. Such Christian witness will be, especially after the Shoah, discreet and humble, must avoid any appearance of triumphalism, and show respect and esteem for the conviction of the Jewish partner. Humility admittedly should not be mistaken for sycophancy or even cowardice. To be a witness (martyrs), according to the Scriptures, is no small thing and should be done with candor.

It should not be ruled out that some Jews, such as Edith Stein, may convert to Jesus Christ just as in reverse there are Christians who turn to the Jewish faith. However, these are personal decisions of conscience, which must be respected by both sides, but for neither side are they a strategic goal. The salvation of all Israel is according to Saint Paul left to God alone at the end of time (Rom 11:26 ff). In this sense the Pontifical Biblical Commission says: “Jewish messianic expectation is not in vain”; at the end of time both Jews and Christians will recognize the “One who is to come,” the eschatological messiah [PBC 2001, §21].

The common heritage of Jews and Christians includes the joint vocation to a common witness to the one God and his commandments, which as a source orientation is of special urgency for our modern society. This important point was highlighted by Pope Benedict XVI on his visit to the Roman Synagogue. This includes the unmasking and prophetic criticism of the new false gods and idols of our time, and a shared commitment to human dignity, to justice and peace in the world, to the dignity and worth of the family, and to the integrity of creation.


The Church's work to convert all men, including Jews, to true Faith is merely "implied" that "Christians are required give Jews a witness to their faith in Jesus Christ now"? Implied? Implied? There's nothing implied about the Commission that Our Lord gave the Eleven on Ascension Thursday as He rose to His Co-Eternal and Co-Equal Father's right hand in Heaven:

And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. 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 to the consummation of the world. (Matthew 28: 16-20.)


How is "Israel" as defined by the conciliarists excluded by this firm command given by the Divine Messias Himself?

The passages from Kasper's talk quoted just above are classic examples of conciliarspeak.

More talk of "joint witness" as oppose to "new false gods and idols of our time" even though Talmudic Judaism is not of the true God of Divine Revelation.

Kasper even gave yet another invocation of the "Shoah" so as to justify a false sense of humility in speaking to Jews about the necessity of converting to the true Faith while certainly treating them with respect and kindness, just as the Apostles did, just as Saint Vincent Ferrer did, just as Father Alphonse Maria Ratisbonne did after he was converted by the very Mother of God herself. One wonders if Our Lady would be "guilty" of proselytism today  in the eyes of the conciliarists if she appeared to a Jewish person to seek his conversion to the Faith

The Catholic Church has understood Judaism perfectly from her very beginning. What's to understand now, Walter, that is new? Jews reject the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. They must be exhorted to pray for such a belief lest they die unbaptized and outside of the Barque of Saint Peter upon peril of their immortal souls. This is what Saint Peter did on the first Pentecost Sunday. It is what countless others have done since the close of the Apostolic era. It was what Saint Vincent Ferrer did so at the end of the Fourteenth and the beginning of the Fifteenth Centuries in southern France and throughout the Iberian Peninsula:

He exposed the perfidy of the Jews, and refuted the false doctrines of the Saracens, but with so much earnestness and success, that he brought a great number of infidels to the faith of Christ, and converted many thousand Christians from sin to repentance, and from vice to virtue. God had chosen him to teach the way of salvation to all nations, and tribes, and tongues; as also to warn men of the coming of the last and dread day of judgment, He so preached, that he struck terror into the minds of all his hearers, and turned them from earthly affections to the love of God. (From the Roman Breviary on the Life of Saint Vincent Ferrer, as found on Dom Gueranger Prosper's The Liturgical Year.)


Were these the sort of "forced conversions" spoken of by Walter Kasper. Does God "smile" when a baptized Catholic apostatizes and becomes a Jew as the late John "Cardinal" O'Connor said in a televised interview aired on December 25, 1998, when a Catholic man, Stephen Dubner, left the true Faith to "rectify" the "crime" of his parents, who had converted from Judaism to Catholicism in his youth:

But like many a Jewish son before him, he couldn't separate from his mother. He wanted her approval. He presented his problem to Cardinal O'Connor, who artfully contrived a theological olive branch: ''Tell your mother that you have tried to study this, that you have prayed about it, this is not just a revolt or a rejection, this is not a dismissal of what you don't understand -- that this is where you think God wants you to be, an informed Jew.'' (BOOKS OF THE TIMES; Words Upon the Heart, Heard at Last)


God can contradict Himself? He can contradict the missionary work that He gave to Holy Mother Church to seek the conversion of all men and all nations to the true Faith? God wants a man to be "an informed Jew"? Is God a religious indifferentist? Was Rabbi Israel Zolli wrong to have sought to convert to the true Faith and take as his baptismal name of the very pope, Pope Pius XII, whose work he so admired? Why was mention only of Edith Stein and not Eugenio Maria Zolli?

The conciliarists are indeed prowling about the world seeking th ruin of souls, and the sad part about this is that they are so blinded by their own errors that they really do believe that have "discovered" things that have been heretofore hidden or obscured or not understood well in earlier ages. May God have mercy on them as pray for His mercy on us, as we beg Him to send those who adhere to all false religions, the graces from Our Lady's hands that they need to convert and to partake of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the One Who died for them and for each one of us: Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.


As we celebrate today the Queenship of the Blessed Virgin Mary, let us ask Our Lady, she who is the Queen of the Apostles, the men who began the missionary work of the Church on the first Pentecost Sunday by seeking the conversion of the Jews, a missionary work that can never be "lost" or that has any kind of "expiration" date, for the graces to remain steadfast in our defense of the honor and glory and majesty of God when He is so blasphemed and offended by the words and deeds of men who bend over backwards to please non-Catholics as they fear not to offend Him by esteeming the symbols and the places of false religions and as they dare to assert that the "beliefs" of these false religions can contribute to the "better world."

We must make much reparation for our own sins as we seek each week to be cleansed in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance at the hands of true bishops and true priests and as we give all of our efforts to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, praying as many Rosaries each day as our states in life permit.

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Our Lady, Queen of Heaven and of Earth, pray for us.


Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saint Joan of Arc, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

© Copyright 2010, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.