Guest Column: Joseph Ratzinger Is Not the Pope (Jerry Meng)

In the October 2010 edition of Catholic Family News, I was struck by some remarks of Dr. David Allen White in his edifying article “Russia and the Plan of Heaven.” They seemed to me to be relevant to the age of apostasy within which we are living (at least for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear). In reference to the Russian error of schism in 1054 A.D., Dr. White wrote:

Now, these remarks indicate a sincere concern about serious theological problems emanating from present-day Rome. They merit some study and analysis in order to clarify what Dr. White means.

Dr. White says that the “error of schism…is horrifyingly on display in Modern Rome…” He considers that this horrifying schism of Modern Rome is “perhaps” a sign that Modern Rome is in schism with “Eternal Rome.” He bewails the apparent fact that the perennial teachings and basic mandates of “Holy Mother Church” are “ignored or inverted” by Modern Rome. He groans over the apparent fact that Modern Rome has separated itself from the traditions of…Eternal Rome” - “first of all the Churches in the world”. He reaffirms Catholic doctrine that Christ promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church, and that “the Holy Spirit prevents the Church from officially teaching error in dogma and doctrine.” However, he asserts that unofficially “today's Rome” has separated itself from its own past by word and shameful practices under the guise of a “'living' tradition.” The hallmark of the Church, today, according to Dr. White, is that of division against itself or as he puts it, in schism with itself.

Why does he make a distinction between a “Modern Rome” and an “Eternal Rome” in the first place; why the distinction between “recent popes from the previous popes”? Aren't they one and the same; aren't they both expressions of Catholicity? Rome has always been the center of the Catholic world: “…and since God has established that its center and foundation be in the Chair of Peter, it is rightly called Roman; for 'where Peter is, there is the Church.'”1 Our Lord Jesus Christ chose Peter to be the principle and as it were the center of unity. Every one of his true successors has been the principle and the center of unity. A mark of the true Church of Jesus Christ - the Catholic Church - is that it is one. “The Church's universal ordinary magisterium, speaking through pope after pope and theologian after theologian, has repeatedly explained exactly what this unity means: 'The property of the Church by which, in the profession of faith, in governance and in worship, she is undivided in herself and separated from any other.'”2 In Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ludwig Ott wrote, “By unity is to be understood not merely numerical unity or unicity, but above all the inner unity or unicity in the sense of being undivided.” Dr. Ott points out that Our Lord “placed Peter over the other Apostles and instituted in him both a perpetual principle of unity and a visible foundation.”3

In the face of these infallible teachings, he seems to be flirting with heresy when he states that, “Modern Rome is divided from Eternal Rome, the recent popes from the previous popes.” Being one, the Church is indivisible; it cannot be divided against itself - this must be emphasized. We do not believe, however, that Dr. White intended to commit heresy when he wrote these remarks. We believe he is highly frustrated over the situation in Rome, and confused (although, he may not be conscious of it), because he has been influenced by and is a supporter of the policy of the Society of St. Pius X in its method of conducting relations with the Vatican.

There is another reason why division from the past is impossible. Because of Catholic teaching before Vatican II, we know there can be no lack of continuity with past Catholic doctrine, since Vatican I (Session IV, July 18, 1870, Dogmatic Constitution I on the Church of Christ) taught, that the faith of Peter [the Pope] cannot fail and no new doctrines can be taught.4 Besides, Pope Pius XII states in his encyclical Mystici Corporis (no. 40): “That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctam; and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same” (emphasis added). Obviously, apropos the Deposit of Faith, the teaching authority of the one, True Church of Jesus Christ, which is the Catholic Church, cannot be changed in any way by a true successor of St. Peter, because he is one with Christ, and his faith cannot fail.

Nevertheless, Dr. White maintains there is a division: “the recent pontiffs [divided] from the previous pontiffs.” By recent, we take it he means those popes since the death of Pope Pius XII. If we examine Modern Rome, or the recent pontiffs, perhaps we shall find the source of the separation from the past, and we might discover the ignoring and inversions of perennial Catholic teaching to which Dr. White alluded, such as “the odious idea of religious liberty”, “the noxious notion of ecumenism”, “alterations of the sacraments”, and “tampering with the teachings of the catechisms.” What we know for certain is that division against itself cannot come from the Catholic Church. Now, the recent pontiffs begin with John XXIII, then Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and finally, the current pontiff reigning in Rome, who is Benedict XVI.

Primarily, Dr. White is incensed by unofficial words and shameful practices of Modern Rome, because it is by these that “…today's Rome has separated itself from its own past.” One is mystified by his use of the terms “official” and “unofficial”, since he never defined them or gave examples of unofficial words and shameful practices. We'll go on the assumption, from his vagueness, that unofficial words and acts do not have the protection of the Holy Ghost. They do not have the substance of dogma and are merely private papal (or curial) opinions that have somehow seen the light of day and conflict in some way with Traditional Catholic teaching. Therefore, we must seek examples of them, assuming they have been manifested by the recent pontiffs, to discover whether they are in fact the reasons Dr. White posits for the separation from the past.

Surveying the reign of John XXIII, we seek to find any and all unofficial words or shameful practices. In searching for examples, we came upon an egregious error in an official papal document. It is contained in #14 of his encyclical, Pacem in Terris, of April 11, 1963 in which he declared: “Also among man's rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public.”

This is totally new. This is heresy. This is an explicit, official separation from past Catholic teaching. How is this possible if the Holy Ghost guarantees infallibility in official Catholic teaching?

It is not man's right to worship false gods in public. The Church teaches that States should forbid the propagation and public profession of false religions, a condemned error which John XXIII permits in his encyclical.

In Quanta Cura (#3), December 8, 1964, Pope Pius IX also condemned the idea that every man should be granted the civil right to religious liberty: He declared, “From this totally false notion of social government, they do not fear to uphold that erroneous opinion most pernicious to the Catholic Church, and to the salvation of souls, which was called by Our predecessor, Gregory XVI [Encyclical of August 13, 1832], insanity, namely, that the 'liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which should be proclaimed by law...” (emphasis added)

When the theologian of the Holy Office, Fr. Ciappi, told John XXIII that his encyclical Pacem in Terris contradicted the teaching of Popes Gregory XVI and Pius IX on religious liberty, the Pope responded: “I won't be offended by a few spots if most of it shines.”5

Is this the response of a true pope? It was definitely the reply of a man who had no concern for the purity of the Faith. His remark was a stark demonstration that Christ and he were not “one only head.” What had been revealed by this event was that John XXIII was a heretic; that he had defected from the Faith and that he had automatically excommunicated himself from the Catholic Church by which he removed himself from the papal office, since a non-Catholic cannot ever be pope. This means he was never a true pope, because a true pope cannot fall from the faith. Every true pope is protected by the Holy Ghost. He is guaranteed that protection by Jesus Christ Himself. As Pope Leo XIII taught in his encyclical Satis Cognitum, “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium” (my emphasis). John XXIII certainly receded from a point of Catholic doctrine.

Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi teaches, “For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy” (my emphasis).

How can one know or judge that a man is a heretic?6 “Canon 1325 defines a heretic as a baptized person, still calling himself a Christian, who 'pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.'”7 “…'pertinaciously' is understood by canonists to mean that the person is conscious of the conflict between his opinion and the Church's teaching.”8 If John XXIII did not know beforehand, that his new doctrine was in opposition to Church teaching, which is highly doubtful, he knew for certain after Fr. Ciappi apprised him of that fact. “Heresy is not formal unless one pertinaciously rejects the truth, knowing his error and consenting to it.”9

Mr. John Lane points out there is a correspondence between the nature of man in terms of his intellect and will and the two elements of heresy, false doctrine and pertinacity. “Both the intellect and the will are involved in faith, and both are disordered in heresy. Likewise, both are by their nature internal - that is, neither is by its nature visible externally. But both may be externalized, or brought into the open by the delinquent, and when they are it is possible to identify heresy, or a heretic.”10 How is heresy externalized? Unfortunately, many Catholics think that for a pope's heresy to be open or public, canon law requires that large numbers of people throughout the Church actually recognize a pope's statements as heretical. This is false. Fr. Anthony Cekeda informs us through the canonist G. Michels that, “'actual publication'…is not required - only 'the positive danger that publication can easily and proximately take place…' This would occur, for example, 'in surroundings necessarily accompanied by publication, such as one committed in a public place or gathering with many persons present, or through a means naturally directed toward publication, such as heresy professed in a public journal'….Heresy proclaimed to the crowds in St. Peter's Square or published in Osservatore Romano, therefore, is public as regards ecclesiastical law, no matter how few people fail to recognize what is said as heretical [known as manifest heresy]. For the heresy to be notorious, Fr. Cekeda tells us, “The public notice…required for notoriety is also present when the existence of an offence is 'established in a public way'….This occurs, Michels says, when it 'is established through authentic public documents…because such documents of their nature are open to inspection by many people, and therefore necessarily bring with them public notice….' The authentic public digest for all the documents of the Holy See is the Acta Apostolicae Sedis…Publishing heretical decrees, pronouncements and encyclicals in the Acta would therefore render heresy notorious.”11

John XXIII brought his heresy into the open first, when Fr. Ciappi read Pacem in Terris; and second, when he had it published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, on April 20, 1963. The contents are to be considered promulgated when published and effective three months from date of issue.

Actually, there is no dilemma for Sedevacantists, as there is for liberal Catholics or SSPX adherents, like Dr. White, who have recognized every “pope” since the pontificate of Pius XII. Since, the Catholic Church is indivisible, because it is one in faith, governance, and worship; and, since it is indefectible and infallible; and, since the teaching authority of the Catholic Church is the authority of Christ, it is impossible that Pacem in Terris is a part of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. It was composed or approved by a manifest heretic, and consequently, he could never have been a true pope. This conclusion should resolve the dilemma for Dr. White and be a cogent reason that explains the separation between Eternal Rome and Modern Rome: Modern Rome is not Catholic.

To muddy the waters and defend the SSPX policy of “recognize and resist”, an SSPX supporter might object to this conclusion by asserting that Pacem in Terris does not bind the assent of Catholics; that papal encyclicals are unofficial. However, this is not what the Church teaches. That which is written down in Encyclical letters demands every Catholic's assent. They are official. They are published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. If any Catholic thinks that a papal encyclical is not binding, think again. In Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII wrote: “It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: 'He who heareth you, heareth Me.' (Luke 10:16); and usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among theologians.”

In case Humani Generis is not persuasive enough for the doubtful or recalcitrant, then an ex cathedra pronouncement of Vatican I Council, Session III (Dogmatic Constitution concerning the Catholic Faith), should oblige the doubting Catholic Thomas to change his mind. “Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed” (Denziger 1792).

Therefore, are Catholics bound to give their assent to Pacem in Terris? Obviously, they are not bound. Yet, “traditional” Catholics of the SSPX mindset, who claim that John XXIII was a true pope, must give their assent to this official teaching to remain consistent, even though it contains heresy. What an absurd predicament. The added travesty of the SSPX position is this: by not giving assent while acknowledging him pope places the SSPX and its supporters in a state of schism; conversely, if they do assent, the implication of their recognition of and submission to John XXIII is that the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church! For the Sedevacantist, John XXIII fell away from the Faith by means of his heresy and therefore he placed himself outside of the Church; he was an impostor -- not a true pope, and thus, the gates of hell did not prevail.12

There are other dark events in the life of John XXIII which places serious doubt as to his Catholicity. For example, his encyclical Pacem in Terris was praised by Masonic leaders themselves as a Masonic document. Previous to John XXIII, the Catholic Church and Masonry were bitter enemies. There is testimony that he was not only friends with Freemasons, but that he was one himself.13 His past career was cluttered with suspicion. For example, he was booted-out from the Lateran Seminary during the pontificate of Pius XI.14 Also, he was a friend to Modernists, socialists, communists and other anti-Catholics.15 There is also the controversy that the 1958 conclave was troubled by outside influences which resulted in the “election” of Cardinal Roncalli even though Cardinal Siri had been elected.

With the terrible results of the survey of the impostor John XXIII, it shouldn't be necessary to continue it, because every “papal” act he performed was null and void. For example, Montini was not made a Cardinal, and Vatican II was illegally and invalidly convoked. Still, it will be interesting to survey those so-called popes who followed Roncalli.

The next in line was Paul VI. We will look stringently for any unofficial word or shameful practices that separate him from popes prior to the impostor John XXIII. In seeking the unofficial, we come again upon the official. We find that Paul VI was the man who claimed to be the head of the Catholic Church from June 21, 1963 to August 6, 1978. He was the man who promulgated the Second Vatican Council and the New Mass, both of which have had disastrous consequences for Catholics throughout the world. Researching the documents of Vatican II we take note that they are filled with many heresies; and we find that the Novus Ordo Missae is a non-Catholic liturgy. Paul VI solemnly ratified all 16 documents of Vatican II. It is not possible for a true pope of the Catholic Church to solemnly ratify teachings that are heretical.

Well, one might ask, “What heresies are contained in the VII documents?” Since this is not a multi-volume work, but just a short essay, we'll give a few examples and leave it to the reader to investigate for himself the plethora of heretical doctrines within the documents.

This is one of Vatican II's most blatant heresies. It is a total rejection of the dogma “outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.” The Modernist heretics of Vatican II overturned it, and continue to teach it in the persons of the impostor popes. But, what did true popes teach?

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441, ex cathedra:

This Vatican II heresy denies Catholic teaching that union between sinful mankind and our Lord Jesus Christ only comes from faith and baptism. This is what the Mystical Body of Christ teaches.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, Cantate Domino:

Union with Christ is also lost by separation from the Church, something Vatican II doesn't bother to mention.

This is one of the crass novelties generated by Vatican II's Modernist contingent in this document - the heretical teaching of collegiality. Lumen Gentium declares that the College of Bishops possesses supreme and full power over the universal Church - a sort of episcopalianism. If it were true, then it would mean that Christ did not institute a single head in the Catholic Church in the person of St. Peter. Instead, the Church would be governed by two heads.

Bishop Donald Sanborn calls this “the fundamental heresy of Vatican II concerning the Church.” This error was explained by Fr. Curzio Nitoglia in an article that appeared in the Institute of Our Mother of Good Counsel's journal Sodalitium: Fr. Nitoglia says, “What does this formula actually mean? It was chosen deliberately in order to deny that the Church of Christ is only the Catholic Church. 'Subsistit in' means, in fact, that the Church of Christ is found in the Catholic Church, but is not exclusively identified with the Catholic Church….In fact Pius XII, in Mystici Corporis, teaches that the unique Church of Christ is (est) the Catholic Church. Lumen Gentium, on the other hand, changes the est to subsistit because it no longer identifies (est) the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church. This is to say that the Church founded by Christ exists in the Catholic Church, without excluding the other 'separated churches.'”16

In short, the Mystical Body of Christ has a greater extension than that of the Roman Catholic Church according to the heretics (Modernists) of Vatican II. The concoction of this “new church” was to justify false ecumenism and inter-denominational dialogue and prayer meetings so rabidly encouraged and practiced by the Roman Modernists. It is diametrically opposed to Catholic teaching.

If we look in L'Osservatore Romano during the period of Pope Paul VI's reign we find multitudinous reports of his declarations and comments that are outright repudiations of Traditional Catholic teaching. They cannot be defined as anything else but heresy or apostasy. We'll give just one example of the many dozens which can be read in this official Vatican newspaper.

She [the Church] has also affirmed, during Her long history, at the cost of oppression and persecution, freedom for everyone to profess his own religion. No one, She says, is to be restrained from acting, no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs… As we said, the Council demanded a true and public religious freedom…”17

This is completely false and heretical. In the first place, Paul VI is re-confirming the heresy of John XXIII concerning “public religious freedom” (also incarnated in the Vatican II document Dignitatis humanae). Secondly, the Catholic Church has affirmed during her long history, at the cost of oppression and persecution, that the religion of Jesus Christ is the only one that is true; and that Christ is truly God and truly man. This is why Catholics were persecuted. Paul VI would have us believe, however, that the martyrs were tortured horribly, not for their profession of faith in Christ, but in order for all to have freedom to profess their various false religions! Truly, this is a preposterous, as well as heretical, distortion of the truth.

Enough official evidence has been cited to demonstrate that the man who called himself Paul VI was a manifest heretic, who automatically excommunicated himself from the Catholic Church, according to Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code (still in effect, since the Code of Canon Law of 1983 is null and void), and therefore, he was not a true pope. It is impossible that he was or else we would have to admit that the Catholic Church has defected. These facts further attest that the Rome of Paul VI was not Catholic and therefore explains why Modern Rome is separated from Eternal Rome.

Montini was a leftist and his career showed him very friendly to socialists and communists, a friendship that extended into his “pontificate”. Further, Randy Engel has given evidence in her book, The Rite of Sodomy: Homosexuality and the Roman Catholic Church, that Montini was a homosexual and responsible for appointing some effeminate men to bishoprics in America. Can any rational, educated, faithful Catholic conclude that this miscreant was one with Christ?

So far, our survey has shown a Modern Rome that began in October 1958 with the death of Pope Pius XII and the “election” of Roncalli and continued up to the summer of 1978 with the death of Montini. As we continue our survey of unofficial words and shameful practices, we will scrutinize those of John Paul I, John Paul II, and finally, Benedict XVI.

Unfortunately, our survey produces the same horrible results for these three “popes” as it did for the first two. Herewith follows a list of some of the heretical words and actions and acts of apostasy of the remaining three impostor popes. Again, our survey did not find any unofficial words or shameful practices of Modern Rome; we got side-tracked by the official. By now, seeking for the unofficial should be irrelevant as we are being inundated by official words and acts suffused with heresy/apostasy.

Before he was elected to a very, very short reign, Albino Luciani wrote and submitted a report to Paul VI, in April of 1968, recommending that the Catholic Church should approve the use of the anovulant pill developed by Professor Pincus. Luciani recommended that this pill should become the Catholic birth-control pill.18 United Press International (UPI) discovered that Luciani had advocated a Vatican ruling in favor of artificial birth control. Italian newspapers also carried stories. To substantiate the story, these newspaper reports referred to the Luciani document which was sent to Paul VI by “Cardinal” Urbani of Venice, in which the strong recommendation in favor of the contraceptive pill had been made.19 This is heretical and he carried these sentiments with him into his short-lived papacy.

John Paul I was a devoted disciple of the spirit of Vatican II, especially, regarding ecumenism. He said the following in his first speech announcing the program for his “pontificate”:

1) “The echo of its daily life gives witness that, despite all obstacles, it (the Church) lives in the heart of men, even those who do not share its truth or accept its message.”20

2) ”…the Second Vatican Council (to whose teachings we wish to commit our total ministry)…”21

3) ”We wish to continue to put into effect the heritage of the Second Vatican Council. Its wise norms should be followed out and perfected.”22

4) ”…we place a priority on the revision of the two codes of canon law: that of the oriental tradition and that of the Latin tradition…”23 (my emphasis).

5) “We wish to continue the ecumenical thrust, which we consider a final directive from our immediate Predecessors.”24

In other words, JPI publicly advocated heresy, since Vatican II was heretical. He revealed himself to be a manifest heretic. Therefore, he could not have been a true pope. It was impossible that he was one with Christ.

Now, our survey comes to official words and practices of John Paul II. How could a man claim to be pope and be one with Christ when he:

On June 1, 1999, at the end of an audience, he bowed to the Mohammedan “holy book”, the Koran, presented to him by the Muslim delegation, and he kissed it as a sign of respect. He honored a false religion. Ironically, defenders of these papal heretics seem to think that a heretic can only ever be known by heretical words -- that JPII didn't say the Koran was a “holy book” keeps him orthodox in their eyes. But that is not the teaching of the Catholic authorities. External actions express the thinking of the heart. In Pascendi, Pope St. Pius X says, “Although they express their astonishment that We should number them amongst the enemies of the Church, no one will be reasonably surprised that We should do so, if, leaving out of account the internal disposition of the soul, of which God alone is the Judge, he considers their tenets, their manner of speech, and their action.” St. Thomas Aquinas says, “It belongs to faith not only that the heart should believe, but also that external words and deeds should bear witness to the inward faith, for confession is an act of faith. In this way too, certain external words or deeds pertain to unbelief, in so far as they are signs of unbelief, even as a sign of health is said itself to be healthy. St. Thomas, then gives an example of an act of this nature, “if anyone were…to worship at the tomb of Mahomet, he would be deemed an apostate” (Summa Theologica II-II, Q. 12, Art. 1, Reply Obj. 2). Showing reverence for the Koran by bowing to it and kissing it was an apostate act.

He taught that all men are saved in his March 4, 1978 encyclical Redemptor Hominis (13-3): “We are dealing with each man, for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united Himself forever through this mystery” (my emphasis). However, this is what Pope Gregory X, at the 2nd Council of Lyons, 1274, taught ex cathedra: “The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only… immediately descend into Hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.” This contradicts JPII's teaching that the Son of God united Himself with every man in an unbreakable union, which makes it impossible for anyone to go to Hell, because it lasts forever. In a homily of June 6, 1985, JPII droned-on with this theme: “The Eucharist is the sacrament of the covenant of the Body and Blood of Christ, of the covenant which is eternal. This is the covenant which embraces all. This Blood reaches all and saves all.”25 Traditional Catholic teaching refutes this novelty of JPII. Pope Paul III at the Council of Trent, Session 6, taught ex cathedra: “But although Christ died for all, yet not all received the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His Passion is communicated” (my emphasis).26

JPII said that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the Creed is present, in all its essential elements, in non-Catholic sects.27

JPII declared that the Catholic Church is in communion with non-Catholic sects.28

JPII said that the Catholic Church is incapable of giving credibility to the Gospel, unless there is a “reunion of Christians.”29

JPII said that the Catholic Church shares a common apostolic faith with non-Catholic sects.30

On October 27, 1986, JPII hosted and participated in a Vatican II style ecumenical prayer meeting with false religions at Assisi, Italy. At this abomination, the Buddhists were permitted to place a statue of Buddha on an altar and incensed by a Buddhist priest. Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Mortalium Animos warned against these ecumenical meetings: “Clearly Catholics cannot approve of these undertakings in any way, since they are based on that false opinion of those who think that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy, all of which, although not in the same way, equally manifest and attest to that innate sense which is implanted in us, by which we are drawn to God and to the devout recognition of His sovereignty. Those who hold this opinion not only err and are deceived, but also, since they repudiate the true religion by distorting the notion of it, gradually turn towards naturalism and atheism. For this reason it clearly follows that whosoever adheres to such things, or takes part in their undertakings, utterly abandons the religion revealed by God.” At Assisi, JPII demonstrated his apostasy, again.

On several occasions, JPII told Muslim audiences that Catholics and Muslims believe in the same God, as did his predecessor Montini.

August 8, 1985, JPII visited Togo and prayed in a “sacred forest” consecrated to the worship of pagan gods and participated in a pagan initiation ritual in a grove sacred to the pagan animists.

On June 24, 1986, JPII sat with Grand Rabbi Elio Toaff in the sanctuary of the Jewish synagogue at Rome while the Jewish hymn, “Awaiting the Messias”, was sung. He stood there while the Jews, by that hymn, implicitly denied that Christ was the Messias.

In February of 1986, JPII was marked with cow dung, the “tilac”, the sign of the adorers of the pagan goddess Shiva, by a Hindu priestess at Bombay.

In February of 1993, JPII engaged in dialogues with the high priests and witch doctors of Voodoo.

JPII gave his approval of the construction of the first Mohammedan minaret in Rome in 1995.

JPII gave public approval to the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, which contains many explicit heresies, and utterly contradicts the solemn teaching of the Council of Trent concerning justification.

We could go on and on with JPII's heresies and acts of apostasy, but it isn't necessary and this is not a book. The point is, JPII held and taught these errors and heresies in the name of ecumenism. Bishop Daniel Dolan remarks, “It is this ecumenism which is John Paul II's apostasy. Ecumenism is apostasy, because it reduces all of the dogmas of the Catholic Faith to relativity. In the ecumenical system, all religions are seen to have a certain part of the truth, and all religions are seen to therefore have a certain value. For this reason, John Paul II has frequently repeated the heresy of Vatican II: that the Holy Ghost has not hesitated to use non-Catholic religions as means of salvation….But to treat the dogmas of the Catholic Church in such a way, however, is to strip them of all their value.”31 This is the reason for the Modernist assertion that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, but in other sects, as well, but only partially.

Finally, we come to the present pope who occupies the Chair of Peter: Benedict XVI. Looking around as diligently as possible, we were not able to find any published unofficial words or shameful practices; but, you guessed it, we did find official ones that define a complete separation from Eternal Rome. Again, we are inundated by many horrific examples of this “pope's” heresies and acts of apostasy. For the sake of brevity, only a few will be listed.

Before we proceed to his “papal” doctrinal deviations, probably, Fr. Joseph Ratzinger's book, Introduction to Christianity, published in 1968,32 reveals to Catholics his total Modernism - the synthesis of all heresies as proclaimed by Pope St. Pius X - which will characterize his career in Rome. For example, in this book we can give a classic example of the Modernist. Ratzinger affirms that Jesus the Messiah is a product of the faith of the primitive community. Jesus “is the One who died on the cross, and Who, to the eyes of faith, rose.” The conclusion is that the Resurrection is not then a historical fact, but a simple belief of the disciples! Not only does he deny the historical fact of the Resurrection, he denies the resurrection of the body in general. Some examples from the same book are:

"It now becomes clear that the real heart of faith in the resurrection does not consist at all in the idea of the restoration of bodies, to which we have reduced it in our thinking; such is the case even though this is the pictorial image used throughout the Bible.”33

“The foregoing reflections may have clarified to some extent what is involved in the biblical pronouncements about the resurrection: their essential content is not the conception of a restoration of bodies to souls after a long interval…”34

“To recapitulate, Paul teaches, not the resurrection of physical bodies, but the resurrection of persons…”35

The Resurrection of the Body is no small dogma. Besides being part of the Apostles' Creed, this dogma has been defined more than almost any other dogma of the Faith. Here are just a few examples:

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215, ex cathedra:

“…all of whom will rise with their bodies which they now bear…” (Denz. 429)

Pope Gregory X, Second Council of Lyons, 1274, ex cathedra:

“The same most holy Roman Church firmly believes and firmly declares that nevertheless on the day of judgment all men will be brought together with their bodies before the tribunal of Christ to render an account of their own deeds.” (Denz. 464)

Pope Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus, Jan. 29, 1336, ex cathedra:

“Moreover, we declare that… all men with their bodies will make themselves ready to render an account of their own deeds before the tribunal of Christ…” (Denz. 531)

Thus, Fr. Ratzinger was a manifest heretic long ago; and, he continues to be. Therefore, being a heretic and self-excommunicated from the Catholic Church, he could never have become pope. He was disqualified long before April 2005.

In the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor teaches, “Just as mortal sin is contrary to charity, so is disbelief in one article of faith contrary to faith. Now charity does not remain in a man after one mortal sin. Therefore neither does faith, after a man disbelieves one article” (II-II, Q.5, A.3). Does this survey show a man in which remains the Catholic Faith?

In BXVI's general audiences of November 19 and November 26, 2008, on the subject of justification, he revealed his own understanding of the Faith that is drawn from the poisoned well of the “New Theology”, which has such contempt for Scholasticism and thus for theological and dogmatic precision. Bishop Donald Sanborn critiqued BXVI's remarks and came up with the following findings:

“The speech is pure Lutheranism. It is overtly heretical; [specifically,] a) Ratzinger professes the Lutheran notion that it is faith alone that justifies, and not works: Heretical; b) He accepts Luther's interpretation that 'works' refers to the observance of the moral law, and not to St. Paul's meaning, namely the Mosaic observances. Error; c) He teaches the typically Lutheran doctrine that works are merely congruous with justifying faith, but not in themselves justifying. Heresy; d) He wrongly defines faith as 'communion with Christ,' and wrongly states that faith not animated by charity is false faith. AT LEAST ERRONEOUS, if not heretical. It concludes directly to heresy, and is, I believe, contrary to the teaching of Trent.”36

BXVI is a consummate ecumenist and this was manifested in an address given at the Archbishopric of Cologne on August 19, 2005 to representatives of various Christian sects.

“We all know there are numerous models of unity and you know that the Catholic Church also has as her goal the full visible unity of the disciples of Christ, as defined by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council in its various Documents. This unity, we are convinced, indeed subsists in the Catholic Church, without the possibility of ever being lost; the Church in fact has not totally disappeared from the world.

On the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one's own faith history. Absolutely not!

It does not mean uniformity in all expressions of theology and spirituality, in liturgical forms and in discipline. Unity in multiplicity, and multiplicity in unity: in my homily for the Solemnity of Sts Peter and Paul on June 29 last, I insisted that full unity and true catholicity in the original sense of the word go together. As a necessary condition for the achievement of this coexistence, the commitment to unity must be constantly purified and renewed; it must constantly grow and mature” (my emphasis).

This speech contradicts the teaching of Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.

BXVI denies the nature of dogmatic truth. He cleaves to the philosophically absurd notion that dogmatic truth can never be expressed adequately at any one point in time. For him, each expression of dogma is necessarily “conditioned” by the historical circumstances in which it was pronounced. A book, Theological Pluralism, was published stating the conclusions of the International Theological Commission, the meetings of which were held in October 1972. A brief quotation from the report of this book is to the point:

“In theses 10-12, the difficult problem of the relationship between language and thought is debated, which in post-conciliar discussions was the immediate departure point of the dispute. The identity of the Christian substance as such, the Christian 'thing' was not directly…censured, but it was pointed out that no formula, no matter how valid and indispensable it may have been in its time, can fully express the thought mentioned in it and declare it unequivocally forever, since language is constantly in movement and the content of its meaning changes.” This report was written by Fr. Ratzinger, who was also a member of the aforementioned commission.37

BXVI holds to an ecclesiology of “full” and “partial” communion that flies in the face of the teaching of the Catholic Church. For a documented critique of this heresy, cf. Bishop Donald Sanborn's “Communion: Ratzinger's Ecumenical One-World Church” at www.traditionalmass.org.

In an auditorium, which is part of the Shrine of the Annunciation, in Nazareth, on May 14, 2009, BXVI extolled religious liberty by claiming that false religions (which he does not consider false) have the ability to “contribute” to the “betterment” of nations and the world, when he declared, “Galilee, a land known for its religious and ethnic diversity, is home to a people who know well the efforts required to live in harmonious coexistence. Our different religious traditions have a powerful potential to promote a culture of peace, especially through teaching and preaching the deeper spiritual values of our common humanity [but not teach Jesus Christ Crucified].” This honor to false religions is the work of Antichrist.

BXVI recommends the “separation of Church and State”, a thesis called absolutely false by Pope St. Pius X in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906, and he rejects the obligation of the civil state to recognize the Catholic Church as its official religion and to pursue the common temporal good in light of man's Last End. BXVI is not only a theological-philosophical Modernist, he is also a social Modernist.

BXVI has rejected the official philosophy of the Catholic Church ever since his seminary days. He has rejected the Scholasticism of St. Thomas Aquinas in favor of the condemned precepts of the so-called “New Theology”. This rejection of Scholasticism is, as Pope St. Pius X noted in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, a cornerstone of Modernism. Cf. Fr. Ratzinger's book, Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977.

BXVI, in his Principles of Catholic Theology, opposes Pope Pius IX's The Syllabus of Errors by referring to the texts of Gaudium et Spes and Dignitatis Humanae as part of a “countersyllabus of errors.” He wrote, “Let us be content to say here that the text serves as a countersyllabus and, as such, represents on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789.” Any Freemason would be most pleased with these blasphemous remarks.

In his 1998 book Milestones, Joseph Ratzinger uttered heresy when he declared, “I have ever more come to the realization that Judaism… and the Christian faith described in the New Testament are two ways of appropriating Israel's Scriptures, two ways that, in the end, are both determined by the position one assumes with regard to the figure of Jesus of Nazareth. The Scripture we today call Old Testament is in itself open to both ways…” Two years later, more heresy, “[W]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…”38

On August 19, 2005 - a Friday at noon, the same day and hour that Jesus was crucified - BXVI arrived at the Jewish Synagogue in Cologne, Germany and took active part in a Jewish worship service. To take active part in non-Catholic worship is a sin against the divine law and the First Commandment, as was always taught before Vatican II - it is an act of apostasy.

St. Ambrose, Sermo 37, The Two Ships:

“The faithlessness of the Synagogue is an insult to the Savior. Therefore He chose the bark of Peter, and deserted that of Moses; that is, He rejected the faithless Synagogue, and adopts the believing Church.”39

At the synagogue, Benedict XVI was seated prominently near the front. The synagogue was packed with Jews who were there to see him. Benedict XVI was not only an integral part of the Jewish worship service, he was its main feature. This is without any doubt active participation in the Jewish religion. Very close to Benedict XVI, the cantor of the synagogue prayed and sang Jewish prayers at the top of his lungs. Benedict made gestures, such as bowing his head and clapping his hands, to show his approval and participation in the Jewish service. He joined the Jews in the Kaddish prayer, and Yiddish music blared in the background. When Benedict XVI rose to speak (and eventually to pray) in the synagogue, the entire synagogue rose to its feet and applauded him - applauded him for his acceptance of their religion. Everyone on earth who saw this event knows that it had one meaning: Benedict XVI has no problem with Jews who reject Jesus Christ, and (according to him) they have no obligation to accept Jesus Christ to be saved. Benedict XVI teaches that Jews can be saved, that the Old Covenant is valid, and that Jesus Christ is not necessarily the Messiah. He is a bold heretic against the Gospel and the Catholic Faith.40

December 1, 2006, BXVI visited the famed Blue Mosque in Istanbul, Turkey and praying there faced toward Mecca like the Muslims do. It was “a wonderful surprise” according to the Turkish daily Aksam on its front page.41 For Catholics who know the Faith, it was an act of pure apostasy. In his Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith BXVI states, “Islam, too,… has inherited from Israel and the Christians the same God…” The fact is both the Jews and the Muslims do not adore the same God as Catholics, because they reject the Trinity and Catholics worship the Blessed Trinity.42

In his September 2006 speech wherein he apologized for his comments on Islam made during an earlier trip to Germany, BXVI claimed, “In the Muslim world, this quotation has unfortunately been taken as an expression of my personal position, thus arousing understandable indignation. I hope that the reader of my text can see immediately that this sentence does not express my personal view of the Qur'an for which I have respect due to the holy book of a great religion.”43 Benedict XVI respects the Koran as a holy book of a great religion. The Koran blasphemes the Trinity, denies the Divinity of Christ, and says those who believe in it are as excrement. It also says that all Christians are damned. This statement by Benedict XVI is total apostasy. We already covered how John Paul II kissed the Koran; this is to kiss the Koran in words. BXVI has entered two mosques and three synagogues and one Lutheran church on various trips since April 2005.

We have come to the end of our survey and we are appalled at the evidence gathered. It conclusively shows a definite separation of Modern Rome from Eternal Rome. It reveals a colossal state of apostasy in and seeping forth from Rome. It does confirm Dr. White's observations. The only problem is that none of the evidence gathered is unofficial; it is all official. Therefore, the only solution to the problem is to admit that those who have “ruled” in Rome ever since the death of Pope Pius XII are heretics/apostates and impostor popes. The Catholic Church can never be divided against itself. It is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. It is infallible and indefectible. It is animated by the Holy Ghost and operates with the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. Those who assert that the Vatican II sect is the Catholic Church are affirming that the Catholic Church officially endorses false religions and false doctrines. This is impossible and would mean that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Catholic Church. Dr. White cannot have it both ways. Rome cannot be both Catholic and non-Catholic at the same time. He and his SSPX mentors must admit this and take the appropriate actions.

End Notes

[1] Denziger 1976.

[2] Fr. Anthony Cekeda, “Resisting the Pope, Sedevacantism and Frankenchurch”, p. 8. He cites the theologian J. de Groot, Summa Apologetica de Ecclesia Catholica (Regensberg: Mainz 1906) 153. “’indivisa in se et divisa a quolibet allio.’”

[3] 302-303; Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical Satis cognitum, which ex professo treats of the unity of the Church, comments, “As her Divine Founder willed that the Church should be one in faith, in government and in communion, He appointed Peter and his successors to be the foundation and, as it were, the centre of its unity.” D 1960.

[4] “For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth. Indeed, all the venerable fathers have embraced their apostolic doctrine, and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed it, knowing full well that the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord the Savior made to the chief of His disciples: ‘I have prayed for thee, that they faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm they brethren” [Luke 22:32]. (Denziger 1836)

[5] Catholic Restoration, March-April 1992, Madison Heights, MI, p. 29.

[6] Mr. John Lane in his treatise proving that JPII was a notorious heretic, begins by affirming “that we may indeed form judgements [sic] about others, and also that we may act upon them.” He quotes the Ultimate Authority in this regard: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Matt. 7:15.” Mr. Daly continues, “It is agreed by all who haven’t thoroughly absorbed the appalling liberalism of our times that one may indeed judge. Moral theology manuals lay down that rash judgement [sic] is sinful, but they say nothing in condemnation of judging, per se. In fact, what they do is explicitly affirm the right and, in appropriate situations, the duty, of judging others….St. Thomas Aquinas proposes the following objection, familiar to all who live in our days of suffocating Liberalism, ‘It would seem unlawful to judge. For nothing is punished except what is unlawful. Now those who judge are threatened with punishment, which those who judge not will escape, according to Mt. 7:1, “Judge not, and ye shall not be judged.” Therefore it is unlawful to judge.’ And he answers as follows, ‘In these words our Lord forbids rash judgement [sic] which is about the inward intention, or other uncertain things, as Augustine states (De Serm. Dom. In Monte ii, 18). Or else He forbids judgement [sic]about Divine things, which we ought not to judge, but simply believe, since they are above us, as Hilary declares in his commentary on Mt. 5. Or again according to Chrysostom, He forbids the judgement [sic] which proceeds not from benevolence but from bitterness of heart.’” In a later passage, Mr. Daly cites St. Thomas Aquinas, again, to show “that the law of Holy Church requires that individuals form a prudent judgement, [sic] on occasion, regarding another’s sinfulness.” In other words, St. Thomas shows that “it is a right and a duty.” However, as Fr. Anthony Cekeda explains, “Heresy is both a crime (delictum) against canon law and a sin (peccatum) against divine law. The Pope “is the supreme legislator and therefore not subject to canon law, a pope cannot commit a true delictum of heresy or incur an excommunication. He is subject only to the divine law. Therefore, in terms of canon law, no man has jurisdiction to judge a pope only another pope can. However, if a pope violates “the divine law through the sin (peccatum) of heresy that a heretical pope loses his authority – ‘having become an unbeliever [factus infidelis],’ as Cardinal Billot says, ‘he would by his own will be cast outside the body of the Church.’”

[7] Cf. Mr. John Lane’s website: www.sedevacantist.com/post3.html.

[8] Cf. www.sedevacantist.com/pertinacity.html. Mr. John S. Daly who wrote the article, “Pertinacity: Material and Formal Heresy” published on this website refers to the following canonists apropos pertinacity: Noldin: Theologia Moralis, vol. II, n.29; de Siena: Commentarius Censurarum, p.24; Dom Gregory Sayers: Thesaurus Casuum Conscientiae III,iv,18; Suarez: Opera, XII, p.474, ed. Vivès; Bouscaren and Ellis: Canon Law, p.902).

[9] Cf. www.sedevacantist.com/post3.html. Mr. Lane cites McHugh and Callan, Moral Theology – A Complete Course (Wagner, New York, London, 1958).

[10] Cf. www.sedevacantist.com/post3.html.

[11] Cf. “Sedevacantism Refuted?” at www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=15&catname=10. In light of the criteria necessary to make a pope’s heresy open, we can say that Benedict XVI did just so, on several accounts, when his and Peter Seewald’s book Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times was published.

[12] If the gates of hell were ever to prevail, then it would prove that the Catholic Church was not indefectible. Indefectibility means that the Church will, until the end of time, remain essentially what she is. The indefectibility of the Church requires that at least a remnant of the Church will exist until the end of the world, and that a true pope will never authoritatively teach error to the entire Church. It does not exclude antipopes posing as popes (as we’ve had numerous times in the past, even in Rome) or a counterfeit sect that reduces the adherents of the true Catholic Church to a remnant in the last days. This is precisely what is predicted to occur in the last days and what happened during the Arian crisis.

St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

Further, it should be noted that the Church has defined that heretics are the gates of Hell which Our Lord mentioned in Matthew 16!

Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553:

“… we bear in mind what was promised about the holy Church and Him who said the gates of Hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics)…”

Pope St. Leo IX, Sept. 2, 1053: “The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter… because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome.”

St. Thomas Aquinas (+1262): “Wisdom may fill the hearts of the faithful, and put to silence the dread folly of heretics, fittingly referred to as the gates of Hell.”5 (Intro. To Catena Aurea.)

Notice that heretics are the gates of hell. Heretics are not members of the Church. That is why a heretic could never be a pope. The gates of hell (heretics) could never have authority over the Church of Christ. It is not those who expose the heretical Vatican II antipopes who are asserting that the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church; it’s those who obstinately defend them as popes, even though they can clearly be proven to be manifest heretics.

Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208:

“By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”

St. Francis De Sales (17th century), Doctor of the Church, The Catholic Controversy, pp. 305-306: "Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church..."

[13] The evidence presented, here, indicates that Angelo Roncalli, a disciple of false ecumenism, was an apostate before the conclave of 1958. The following is a quote from the Masonic Bulletin, the official organ of the Supreme Council of the 33rd Degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Masons, for the Masonic District of the United States of Mexico, located at 56 Lucerna St., Mexico, D.F. (Year 18, No. 220, May 1963):

“THE LIGHT OF THE

GREAT ARCHITECT OF THE UNIVERSE

ENLIGHTENS THE VATICAN

“Generally speaking, the encyclical Pacem in Terris, addressed to all men of goodwill, has inspired comfort and hope. Both in democratic and Communist countries it has been universally praised. Only the Catholic dictatorships have frowned upon it and distorted its spirit.

“To us many concepts and doctrines it contains are familiar. We have heard them from illustrious rationalist, liberal, and socialist brothers. After having carefully weighed the meaning of each word, we might say that, the proverbial and typical Vatican literary rubbish notwithstanding, the encyclical Pacem in Terris is a vigorous statement of Masonic doctrine... we do not hesitate to recommend its thoughtful reading” (Fr. Joaquin Arriaga, The New Montinian Church, pp. 147-148).

In the book Resurgence du Temple, published and edited by the Knights Templar (Freemasons), 1975:149, the following quote is of interest: “The direction of our action: Work of John XXIII and all those who have followed him on the way to Templar Universalism” (A.D.O. Datus, “Ab Initio,” p. 60).

When Angelo Roncalli was the nuncio to France, 1944-1953, he appointed a thirty-third degree Freemason and close friend, the Baron Yves Marsaudon, as head of the French branch of the Knights of Malta, a Catholic lay order (Paul I. Murphy and R. Rene Arlington, La Popessa, 1983, pp. 332-333). Yves Marsaudon, the aforementioned French Freemason and author, also claims that Roncalli [John XXIII] became a thirty-third degree Mason while a nuncio at France. Mary Ball Martinez wrote that the French Republican Guards from their posts observed: “…the Nuncio [Roncalli] in civilian clothes leaving his residence to attend the Thursday evening meetings of the Grand Orient [Masonic Lodge] of France. Whereas exposure to such a dramatic conflict of loyalties would unnerve the average man, be he Catholic or Freemason, Angelo Roncalli seems to have taken it in his stride” (Mary Ball Martinez, The Undermining of the Catholic Church, Hillmac, Mexico, 1999, p. 117). The following information about Angelo Roncalli’s membership in Freemasonry is from the The Portugal Daily News (November 11, 2002): “Fátima International (FI), an historic review organisation with offices in Australia, USA, Paraguay and Portugal, has issued a further press release claiming that Cardinal Angelo Roncalli, who was elected as Pope John XXlll in 1958, was a Freemason. In 1994 the Portuguese newspapers “O Dia” and “Correio de Domingo” published a summary of FI’s investigations into the case, which stated that Pope John XXlll [Roncalli] had been initiated into a secret society, the Order of Rosicrucians, whilst serving as the Vatican’s Charge d´Affairs in Paris during 1935.

A spokesman for FI told THE NEWS that Virgilio Guito, former head of the Italian Grande Oriente Masonic Lodges, in a statement published by the French newspaper “30 Days”, said: “It seems that Pope John XXIII has been initiated in Paris, and participated in the works of the Lodges in Istanbul”. The spokesman said that as leader of Italian Masonry, Guito would be in a position to know with certainty if Angelo Roncalli had been initiated into the Order in Paris. “It would be incredibly reckless of him to make such a statement if it were not true” he said.

According to Carpi's book, during his Nunciature in Turkey, Roncalli was admitted "into the sect of the Temple" receiving the name "Brother John" - Prophesies of John XXIII, Pier Carpi, p. 52.

The implications of FI’s disclosures are of tremendous importance to Catholics worldwide. Under Canon Law any Catholic who [...] becomes a Mason is ipso facto excommunicated from the Church. The consequence regarding Angelo Roncalli, would have been that as an excommunicate it would have been impossible for him to be elected pope. FI also points out that any decrees issued by Roncalli under the mantle of the Papacy would therefore be null and void, including the convoking of the Second Vatican Council in 1962 [my emphasis]” (Cf. the website : www.whale.to/b/popexxiii.html).

Finally, a telling clue as to Roncalli’s identification with Freemasonry is the following: “…during the Council the Freemason Yves Marsaudon wrote: ‘If there still exist some isolated isles in the line of the Inquisition, they will be forcibly drowned in the rising sea of ecumenism and liberalism, of which one of the most tangible results will be the lowering of spiritual barriers which still divide the world. With all our hearts we wish success to the ‘Revolution’ of John XXIII.” (Abbé Daniel Le Roux, Peter, Lovest Thou Me? p. 203)

[14] The question arises, was John XXIII a heretic before he was “elected” to the papacy? For years the Holy Office had maintained a dossier on Angelo Roncalli (John XXIII) which read "suspected of Modernism." The file dated back to 1925, when Roncalli, who was known for his unorthodox teachings, was abruptly removed from his Professorship at the Lateran Seminary in mid-semester (he was accused of Modernism) and shipped off to Bulgaria. This transfer to Bulgaria began his diplomatic career. Of particular concern to Rome was Roncalli's continuing, close association with the defrocked priest, Ernesto Buonaiuti, a teacher of Church history, who was excommunicated for heresy in 1926 – the Modernist heresy (Lawrence Elliott, I Will Be Called John, 1973, pp. 90-92).

[15] At social functions in Paris, Roncalli (John XXIII) was also frequently seen socializing with the Soviet ambassador, M. Bogomolov, even though Bogomolov's government had resumed its pre-war policy of brutal extermination of Catholics in Russia.

John XXIII was also known as a "good friend and confidant" of Edouard Herriot, Secretary of the Anti-Catholic Radical Socialists of France (Rev. Francis Murphy, John XXIII Comes To The Vatican, 1959, p. 139).

“Perhaps, Roncalli’s greatest friend was the grand old socialist and anti-clerical, Edouard Herriot.” (Alden Hatch, A Man Named John, p. 114).

When John XXIII was later “elevated” to the College of Cardinals, he insisted upon receiving the red hat from the atheist and notoriously anti-clerical socialist Vincent Auriol, President of the country of France, whom he had described as "an honest socialist” (Alden Hatch, A Man Named John, p. 121).

Roncalli knelt before Auriol, and Auriol placed the cardinal’s biretta on Roncalli’s head. Auriol then hung a “broad red ribbon around the cardinal’s neck embracing him on each cheek with a little bear-hug that imparted personal warmth to formal protocol” (Alden Hatch, A Man Named John, p. 123). Auriol had to wipe away his tears with a handkerchief when Roncalli left to assume his new dignity as “cardinal” (Kurt Klinger, A Pope Laughs, p. 99).

[16] Bishop Donald Sanborn, cited in his A Critical Analysis of Ratzinger’s Document. Cf. www.traditionalmass.org/Dom%20Jesus%20Web.htm.

[17] L’ Osservatore Romano, July 17, 1969, p. 1.

[18] David Yallop, In God’s Name, p. 32.

[19] Ibid., p. 192.

[20] L’ Osservatore Romano, Aug. 31, 1978, p. 6.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Ibid, July 1, 1985, p. 3.

[26] Cf. www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com.

[27] Homily in Santa Maria in Trastevere, April 27, 1980.

[28] Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion, (1992).

[29] Ibid.

[30] L’ Osservatore Romano, June 10, 1980.

[31] The Apostasy of John Paul II: A Catholic Response; www.traditionalmass.org/.

[32] One wonders, if there had been a Catholic Pope on the throne of St. Peter in 1968, would Ratzinger have published his book, because it would have been placed on the index and he would have received a warning to recant his heresies contained in it. As it was, the apostate Montini played at being pope and the book was widely circulated.

[33] Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, 2004, p. 349.

[34] Ibid., p. 353.

[35] Ibid., 357-358.

[36] Cf. www.christorchaos.com/AttemptingtoCoercePerjury.htm.

[37] Cf. www.traditioninaction.org.

[38] Zenit.org, news story for Sept. 5, 2000.

[39] The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, Regnery, Co: Chicago, IL, 1963, Vol. III, p. 223.

[40] St. John Chrysostom had these things to say about the Synagogue: “Many, I know, respect the Jews and think that their present way of life is a venerable one. This is why I hasten to uproot and tear out this deadly opinion. I said that the synagogue is no better than a theater and I bring forward a prophet as my witness. Surely the Jews are not more deserving of belief than their prophets. ‘You had a harlot’s brow; you became shameless before all’. Where a harlot has set herself up, that place is a brothel. But the synagogue is not only a brothel and a theater; it also is a den of robbers and a lodging for wild beasts. Jeremiah said, ‘Your house has become for me the den of a hyena’. He does not simply say ‘of wild beast’, but ‘of a filthy wild beast’, and again: ‘I have abandoned my house, I have cast off my inheritance’. But when God forsakes a people, what hope of salvation is left? When God forsakes a place, that place becomes the dwelling of demons.” And, “But at any rate the Jews say that they, too, adore God. God forbid that I say that. No Jew adores God! Who says so? The Son of God says so. For he said: ‘If you were to know my Father, you would also know me. But you neither know me nor do you know my Father’. Could I produce a witness more trustworthy than the Son of God?” Finally, “If, then, the Jews fail to know the Father, if they crucified the Son, if they thrust off the help of the Spirit, who should not make bold to declare plainly that the synagogue is a dwelling of demons? God is not worshipped there. Heaven forbid! From now on it remains a place of idolatry. But still some people pay it honor as a holy place.” (St. John Chrysostom: Eight Homilies Against the Jews; cf. www.christorchaos.com.

[41] Reuters.com, Fri, Dec. 1, 2006.

[42] In a recent tape, al Queda leader Osama bin Laden urged jihad against the “polytheists”; that is, those who believe in and worship the Blessed Trinity.

[43] Cf. www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html#_ftn3.


© Copyright 2010, Travis Grasley. All rights reserved.