On the Terms of the Enemies of Christ the King

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Efforts on the part of the ancient enemies of the Christ the King, the adherents of the Talmud and their enablers, to thwart the "reconciliation" between the conciliar revolutionaries and the Society of Saint Pius X have begun.

Reprising the the efforts made by Talmudists and their conciliar enablers following the broadcast interview with Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of Saint Pius that aired on Swedish television on Wednesday, January 21, 2009, in which His Excellency answered a question about his views of the nature and extent of the crimes committed by agents of the Third Reich against Jews in Germany and elsewhere in Europe (see Those Who Deny The Holocaust, Disciples of Caiphas, Under The Bus, Nothing New Under the Conciliar Sun, Story Time in Econe, Yes, Sir, Master Scribe and No Crime Is Worse Than Deicide) efforts that seemed to have been timed to precede Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict's January 24, 2009, lifting of the "excommunications" imposed by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II upon the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on June 29, 1988, Talmudic enablers have now begun recycling charges of anti-Semitism against the Society of Saint Pius X that were made thirty-nine months ago now. An Italian journalist by the name of Giulio Meotti has even gone so far as to claim that the currently reigning false "pontiff" risks taking what most think is the Catholic Church into a "new era" of anti-Semitism:

 

The Catholic splinter group Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) sent a letter of reconciliation to the Vatican, which Der Spiegel magazine defined as “the greatest gift to the papacy of Benedict XVI.” Pope Joseph Ratzinger has long wanted to heal the schism with the Society and bring the followers of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre back into the Church.

Richard Williamson, one of four Society bishops whose excommunications the Pope revoked, made global headlines by publicly denying the Holocaust.

Sources now say that an agreement between the Catholic Church and the Society is “imminent” and they are closer to reconciliation.

The National Catholic Register put it this way: “Get ready for SSPX Pandemonium.”

Yet hatred for Israel and the Jews permeates not only Williamson’s fringe, but the entire Catholic Society.

The Vatican’s unity with Lefebvre’s group would be a renovation of the “Adversus Judeaos” teachings that spurred pogroms, burnings at the stake, the Inquisition and the gas chambers. It’s the same medieval European hatred of the people of Israel which was so intense that all calamities were attributed to the Jews’ malfeasance.

The Italian branch of the Society just chose a new head, Pierpaolo Petrucci, whose positions on the Jews are the exact copy of Williamson's. Petrucci published an essay on the website of the Society, stating: “About the Jews, Joseph Ratzinger calls them ‘Fathers in faith’. What does it mean? Supporting Israel’s policy despite the Palestinian question? Supporting the Jewish religion? If that’s the case, how can the Church approve a false religion which rejects Jesus Christ?”

Petrucci calls the Jews “rejecters of Christ” and claims that “the Church always condemned Judaism as a false religion, praying for the conversion (of the Jews,) so that they will reach salvation, seriously compromised by their superstitions.”

The Society’s bulletin, La Tradizione Cattolica, calls Judaism “a false cult” and spreads delusional material on “the Jew Karl Marx” and “the Jews sleeping in the shadow of death.”

The Society’s US website calls the Jews “enemy of man, whose secret weapon is the leaven of the Pharisees which is hypocrisy.”

The South African site claims that “Jews have come closer and closer to fulfilling their substitute-Messianic drive towards world dominion.”

The Belgian site accuses Jews of “still believing they are the chosen people” while “awaiting world domination.”

This is even worse than the lunatic statements of Williamson denying the existence of Auschwitz.

It’s the cornerstone of the displacement Christian myth, which rings a genocidal note.

Franz Schmidberger, the right-hand man of superior Bishop Bernard Fellay, asked for the Jews’ conversion and called them “complicit in deicide.”

Another bishop pardoned by the Pope, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, said that “the Jews are the most active artisans for the coming of Antichrist.”

If the Vatican welcomes back the Society, Jewish rabbis should halt their dialogue with the Church and Israeli officials should declare the Society’s leaders “personae non grata.” Any Jewish-Christian rapprochement would be not only futile, but extremely dangerous.

It is incumbent upon Pope Benedict to atone for what Christianity has done to the Jewish people by recognizing the unique role of the Jews in this world and the existence of a restored Israel as the proof that the Jewish people is not annihilated, assimilated and withering away.

Otherwise, Christian anti-Semitism will remain an inextinguishable fire and Catholicism will be embracing, again, a proto-Holocaust theology. (Vatican embracing anti-Semitism.)

Giulio Meotti, whoever he is, has simply recycled all of the old, baseless charges of "anti-Semitism" against the Society of Saint Pius X that were thrown out in January and February of 2009. Talmudists made these charge at that time as they dragged out these exact, perfectly defensible quotations. This provided two conciliar "cardinals," Roger Mahony, then the conciliar "archbishop" of Los Angeles, California, and Sean O'Malley, the conciliar "archbishop" of Boston, Massachusetts, opportunities to posture and preen in front of the cameras at events staged with Talmudists to denounce Bishop Williamson in particular and "anti-Semitism" in general.

The symbiotic relationship that exists between many pro-abortion, pro-perversity leaders of the "reformed" branch of the false religion of Talmudic Judaism and "ultra-progressive" revolutionaries in the counterfeit church of conciliarism serves both sides very well.

"Ultra-progressive" revolutionaries in the conciliar church are not quite as "inclusive" as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. That is, the "ultra-progressives" believe that any "reconciliation" of the Society of Saint Pius X with what they believe to be the Catholic Church represents a repudiation of the doctrinal and liturgical revolutions to which they have devoted such zeal in promoting and institutionalizing.

As noted just a few days ago in "Joe" Hasn't Changed, Fellas, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has every intention of proceeding forth with his revolution. He is simply doing so at a more deliberate and methodical pace than that desired by the "ultra-progressives."  He is willing, it appears, to accept the Society of Saint Pius X as a full member of his false church even though he might have to tolerate a disparity of views for a period of time after the official "reconciliation," if one is to occur (which I still believe will be the case), has been effected.

Ratzinger/Benedict believes that the history of such "reconciliations" with individual traditionally-minded Catholics after Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II issued the first "indult" for the offering of the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition under very strict conditions (Quattuor abhinc annos, October 3, 1984, which is referenced in As the Conciliar Fowler Lays More Snares) and as a result of Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, July 2, 1988, which was issued by Wojtyla/John Paul II three days after Archbishop Lefebvre's episcopal consecrations in Econe, Switzerland, that permitted twelve priests and around twenty seminarians to become full-fledged members of the conciliar church and that served as the entrance door into that same false church for the Society of Saint John Mary Vianney in Campos, Brazil, shows "promise" for the possibility of "pacifying spirits" and "breaking down" "one-sided opinions." This is one of the reasons he issues Summorum Pontificum on July 7, 2009. He went to great lengths at that time to tell us precisely what he was doing:

It is true that there have been exaggerations and at times social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition. Your charity and pastoral prudence will be an incentive and guide for improving these. For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The "Ecclesia Dei" Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the "usus antiquior," will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.

I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church. Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church's leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to unable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew. I think of a sentence in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul writes: "Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. In return … widen your hearts also!" (2 Corinthians 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another context, but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this subject. Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows. (Explanatory Letter on "Summorum Pontificum".)

 

Ratzinger/Benedict repeated this intention quite explicitly in France in September of 2008 (see the pertinent passage in thirty-seven months ago when he wrote yet another "explanatory letter" to his "bishops" after "lifting" the "excommunications" of the four Society of Saint Pius X bishops, a letter that also sought to exculpate himself about being "ignorant" of Bishop Williamson's well-known position concerning the nature and extent of the crimes of the Third Reich:

Leading men and women to God, to the God Who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all believers. Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility of their talk of God. Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith - ecumenism - is part of the supreme priority. Added to this is the need for all those who believe in God to join in seeking peace, to attempt to draw closer to one another, and to journey together, even with their differing images of God, towards the source of Light - this is inter-religious dialogue. Whoever proclaims that God is Love 'to the end' has to bear witness to love: in loving devotion to the suffering, in the rejection of hatred and enmity - this is the social dimension of the Christian faith, of which I spoke in the Encyclical 'Deus caritas est'.

"So if the arduous task of working for faith, hope and love in the world is presently (and, in various ways, always) the Church's real priority, then part of this is also made up of acts of reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who 'has something against you' and to seek reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents - to the extent possible - in the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole. Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim Him and, with Him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?

"Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things - arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them - in this case the Pope - he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint. (LETTER ON REMISSION OF EXCOMMUNICATION LEFEBVRE BISHOP)

 

"Ultra-progressives," therefore, have nothing at all to fear from a possible "reconciliation" of the Society of Saint Pius X with their false church. Ratzinger/Benedict may not share all of their goals. However, he shares enough of what could be called an "irreducible minima" of their goals to continue along the "evolutionary" path of what he thinks is the Catholic Church's "reconciliation" with Modernity. The current false "pontiff" believes that giving the bishops and priests of the Society of Saint Pius X a "room" in what Bishop Bernard Fellay once called the "conciliar zoo" will "pacify spirits" over the course of time, especially about the laity who assist at Holy Mass at chapels administered by the Society, to such an extent that the same kind of "neutralization" of "one-sided positions" and "arrogance and presumptuousness" can occur as has happened with the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter and Saint John Mary Vianney, which became a full-fledged "partner" in the counterfeit church of conciliarism on January 18, 2002, just over ten years ago now.

Thus it is that this writer has his mouth agape over the contention made by some Talmudists and their enablers, such as Giulio Meotti, that what they think is the Catholic Church is "returning" to what they view as its "anti-Semitic" past by attempting to chart a possible path of "reconciliation" with the Society of Saint Pius X as it is Ratzinger/Benedict's hope that such a "reconciliation" will result in the "conversion" of the future generations of priests and laity in the Society to a full and complete acceptance of the conciliar church's apostate views concerning the Jews that have been expressed repeatedly in the past fifty years (for a review of the exploitation of the term "anti-Semitic" to silence Catholics from expressing anything resembling the immutable, perennial teaching of Holy Mother Church concerning Judaism, see Chopped Liver No More). Indeed, the false "popes" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism and many of their "bishops" and theologians and priests/presbyters have fallen all over themselves to accommodate the ancient enemies of Christ the King, which is why it is laughable that the Talmudists demand what is, in effect, an immediate repudiation by the leaders of the Society of Saint Pius X of its "anti-Semitic" statements, which are nothing of the sort as they represent simple Catholic truth, as Ratzinger/Benedict believes that a "purification of memory" will occur on its own in the natural course of events as those in the Society become comfortable with living without being labeled as "schismatics" and "disloyal" by their friends and relatives who are attached to the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service.

Mr. Meotti, under what rock have you been living? How old are you anyway? Come on, kid, the conciliarists have proved over and over again that they are more than willing to appease adherents of the Talmud, a false religion that is not, quite incidentally, the same as the once true religion that was superseded by the New and Eternal Testament that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ instituted at the Last Supper on Maundy Thursday and ratified by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday.

Have a little gander at just some of the ways in which this appeasement of the contemporary enemies of Christ the King in the synagogue has been expressed by the agents of the counterfeit church of conciliarism:

 

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

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

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

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

We repeat: this is the Christian vision, and it is the hope of the Church that prays. It is not a programmatic proposal of theoretical adherence, nor is it a missionary strategy of conversion. It is the attitude characteristic of the prayerful invocation according to which one hopes also for the persons considered near to oneself, those dear and important, a reality that one maintains is precious and salvific. An important exponent of French culture in the 20th century, Julien Green, wrote that "it is always beautiful and legitimate to wish for the other what is for you a good or a joy: if you think you are offering a true gift, do not hold back your hand." Of course, this must always take place in respect for freedom and for the different paths that the other adopts. But it is an expression of affection to wish for your brother what you consider a horizon of light and life. ("Archbishop" Gianfranco Ravasi, A Bishop and a Rabbi Defend the Prayer for the Salvation of the Jews.)

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, quoted in Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Great Facade. Remnant Press, 2002, pp. 203-204.)

Once again, Kasper received no correction from the Pope or any Vatican dicastery [Thomas A. Droleskey interjection here: and neither has Kasper received any correction from Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI for saying similar things repeatedly in the course of the past three and one-half years!]. 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. Remnant Press, 2002, pp. 203-204.)

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has let stand the remarks made by Raniero Cantalamessa and Walter Kasper and Gianfranco Ravasi. He has made many of his own, both as Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger and as "Pope"Benedict XVI:

 

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. Remnant Press, 2002, pp. 369-372.)

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

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

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

Gee, who has created the impression that the counterfeit church of conciliarism has no mission from God to seek the conversion of the Jews? The conciliarists themselves, of course, chief among them being Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who never spoke of any need for the Jews to convert during his pilgrimage to Israel in May of 2009 or when he visited the Synagogue of Rome on January 18, 2010, the Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter in the Catholic Church:

3. The passage of time allows us to recognize in the Twentieth Century a truly tragic period for humanity: ferocious wars that sowed destruction, death and suffering like never before; frightening ideologies, rooted in the idolatry of man, of race, and of the State, which led to brother killing brother.  The singular and deeply disturbing drama of the Shoah represents, as it were, the most extreme point on the path of hatred that begins when man forgets his Creator and places himself at the centre of the universe.  As I noted during my visit of 28 May 2006 to the Auschwitz Concentration camp, which is still profoundly impressed upon my memory, “the rulers of the Third Reich wanted to crush the entire Jewish people”, and, essentially, “by wiping out this people, they intended to kill the God who called Abraham, who spoke on Sinai and laid down principles to serve as a guide for mankind, principles that remain eternally valid” (Discourse at Auschwitz-Birkenau Concentration Camp: The Teachings of Pope Benedict XVI, II, 1 [2006], p.727). (Ratzinger at Rome synagogue: ‘May these wounds be healed forever!’ )

 

"The singular and deeply disturbing drama of the Shoah represents, as it were the most extreme point on the path of hatred that begins when man forgets his Creator and places himself at the centre of the universe." "Singular" drama of the "Shoah." No, the greatest crime ever committed was that of Deicide.

"Singular drama of the Shoah"? No, the most extreme path of hatred was that which was imposed upon the God-Man, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, as He was put to death by our sins. The Jews of His time showed Him that they knew full Who He was, God in the very flesh, and they hated Him, shouting out the following to the political coward named Pontius Pilate, who wanted to maintain his position in Roman governance by appeasing the shouts of the crowd calling out for the Blood of the Divine Redeemer to be shed:

And the governor answering, said to them: Whether will you of the two to be released unto you? But they said, Barabbas. Pilate saith to them: What shall I do then with Jesus that is called Christ? They say all: Let him be crucified. The governor said to them: Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying: Let him be crucified. And Pilate seeing that he prevailed nothing, but that rather a tumult was made; taking water washed his hands before the people, saying: I am innocent of the blood of this just man; look you to it. And the whole people answering, said: His blood be upon us and our children. (Matthew 27: 21-25.)

 

The Jews of Our Lord's time knew what they were doing. They did not care. Their descendants have not cared as they persecuted the Church in her infancy, willingly pointing out Catholics who were hiding in various places from the Roman authorities in order to curry favor with those authorities after they had been dispersed from the Holy Land in 70 A.D. Over thirteen million Catholics were killed by Roman authorities and their minions in their occupied lands between 67 A.D. and 313 A.D., and Jews played a role in seeking to kill the true Faith and those who adhered to it once and for all during this period of the Church's infancy.

Indeed, it was the Judeo-Masonic warfare against the Catholic Faith and the Social Reign of Christ the King in the centuries following the Protestant Revolt and the rise of naturalistic philosophies and ideologies that made possible the rise of anti-Theistic regimes such as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Nazi Germany, both of which were founded in an belief that the spread of their respective statist ideologies could improve the world. The Jewish warfare against the Faith was, therefore, in very large measure responsible for the letting loose of demonic forces that resulted in the crimes committed by agents of Adolf Hitler's Third Reich. It was the Judeo-Masonic effort to kill off Christ the King once and for all that brought out the crimes of the Twentieth Century, which are as of yet ongoing in the Twenty-first Century as innocent babies are put to deaths in their mothers' wombs around the world, both by surgical and chemical means, under cover of the civil law to this very day.

Ratzinger/Benedict's efforts yesterday to defend Pope Pius XII's "wartime record" without referring to him, a truly shameful act of cowardice in and of itself, was incomplete and shallow:

Here in this place, how could we not remember the Roman Jews who were snatched from their homes, before these very walls, and who with tremendous brutality were killed at Auschwitz?  How could one ever forget their faces, their names, their tears, the desperation faced by these men, women and children?  The extermination of the people of the Covenant of Moses, at first announced, then systematically programmed and put into practice in Europe under the Nazi regime, on that day tragically reached as far as Rome.  Unfortunately, many remained indifferent, but many, including Italian Catholics, sustained by their faith and by Christian teaching, reacted with courage, often at risk of their lives,  opening their arms to assist the Jewish fugitives who were being hunted down, and earning perennial gratitude.  The Apostolic See itself provided assistance, often in a hidden and discreet way.

The memory of these events compels us to strengthen the bonds that unite us so that our mutual understanding, respect and acceptance may always increase. (Ratzinger at Rome synagogue: ‘May these wounds be healed forever!’ )

 

"A hidden and discreet way"? This is a lie. Adolf Hitler knew that Pope Pius XII was seeking to rescue the Jews of Europe, which is why he, Hitler, had plans to kidnap or kill the pontiff and to place a puppet "pope" on the Throne of Saint Peter. Although Ratzinger/Benedict has spoken of Pope Pius XII's efforts in other forums, he had an opportunity yesterday to remind the Jews gathered there that our last true pope's efforts were so courageous that they inspired one of Rabbi Riccardo Di Segni's own predecessors as the Grand Rabbi of Rome, Israel Zolli, to convert to the Catholic Faith on February 13, 1945, as he took the baptismal name of Eugenio Maria in honor of Pope Pius XII himself  (see The Truth About Pope Pius XII).

Perhaps the most glaring apostate statement made by Ratzinger/Benedict twenty-seven months ago now when he visited the Rome Synagogue was this one:

7. As Moses taught in the Shema (cf. Dt 6:5; Lev 19:34) – and as Jesus reaffirms in the Gospel (cf. Mk 12:19-31), all of the Commandments are summed up in the love of God and loving-kindness towards one’s neighbour.  This Rule urges Jews and Christians to exercise, in our time, a special generosity towards the poor, towards women and children, strangers, the sick, the weak and the needy.  In the Jewish tradition there is a wonderful saying of the Fathers of Israel: “Simon the Just often said: The world is founded on three things: the Torah, worship, and acts of mercy” (Avoth 1:2).  In exercising justice and mercy, Jews and Christians are called to announce and to bear witness to the coming Kingdom of the Most High, for which we pray and work in hope each day.

8. On this path we can walk together, aware of the differences that exist between us, but also aware of the fact that when we succeed in uniting our hearts and our hands in response to the Lord’s call, his light comes closer and shines on all the peoples of the world.  The progress made in the last forty years by the International Committee for Catholic-Jewish Relations and, in more recent years, by the Mixed Commission of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and of the Holy See, are a sign of our common will to continue an open and sincere dialogue.  Tomorrow here in Rome, in fact, the Mixed Commission will hold its ninth meeting, on “Catholic and Jewish Teaching on Creation and the Environment”; we wish them a profitable dialogue on such a timely and important theme.

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

 

"The word is founded on three things: the Torah, worship, and acts of mercy." The world is founded on the totality of the Divine Revelation that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church and on nothing else She alone offers the only worship that is pleasing to the Most Blessed Trinity, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which is the unbloody re-presentation of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Sacrifice of Himself to His Co-Equal and Co-Eternal Father on the wood of the Holy Cross in atonement for our sins.

"Jews and Christians are called to announce and to bear witness to the coming Kingdom of the Most High, for which we pray and work in hope each day"? This makes it appear as though that Jews indeed are justified in waiting for what they believe is the First Coming of the Messiah in time, which Jews believe will be His one and only coming. This kind of talk represents "progress" all right, the "progress" of sending souls on a path straight to Hell as Catholics and non-Catholics alike are convinced that the efforts of Saint Peter and the other Apostles to covert the Jews were either wrong or have become "outdated" as a result of the "Shoah" and the "Second" Vatican Council's response to it.

"Reciprocal respect"? "Dialogue." Let us turn once again to Saint John Chrysostom, whose feast we will celebrate in nine days:

Let that be your judgment about the synagogue, too. For they brought the books of Moses and the prophets along with them into the synagogue, not to honor them but to outrage them with dishonor. When they say that Moses and the prophets knew not Christ and said nothing about his coming, what greater outrage could they do to those holy men than to accuse them of failing to recognize their Master, than to say that those saintly prophets are partners of their impiety? And so it is that we must hate both them and their synagogue all the more because of their offensive treatment of those holy men." (Saint John Chrysostom, Fourth Century, A.D., Saint John Chrysostom: Eight Homilies Against the Jews.)

Many, I know, respect the Jews and think that their present way of life is a venerable one. This is why I hasten to uproot and tear out this deadly opinion. I said that the synagogue is no better than a theater and I bring forward a prophet as my witness. Surely the Jews are not more deserving of belief than their prophets. "You had a harlot's brow; you became shameless before all". Where a harlot has set herself up, that place is a brothel. But the synagogue is not only a brothel and a theater; it also is a den of robbers and a lodging for wild beasts. Jeremiah said: "Your house has become for me the den of a hyena". He does not simply say "of wild beast", but "of a filthy wild beast", and again: "I have abandoned my house, I have cast off my inheritance". But when God forsakes a people, what hope of salvation is left? When God forsakes a place, that place becomes the dwelling of demons.

(2) But at any rate the Jews say that they, too, adore God. God forbid that I say that. No Jew adores God! Who says so? The Son of God says so. For he said: "If you were to know my Father, you would also know me. But you neither know me nor do you know my Father". Could I produce a witness more trustworthy than the Son of God?

(3) If, then, the Jews fail to know the Father, if they crucified the Son, if they thrust off the help of the Spirit, who should not make bold to declare plainly that the synagogue is a dwelling of demons? God is not worshipped there. Heaven forbid! From now on it remains a place of idolatry. But still some people pay it honor as a holy place. (Saint John Chrysostom: Eight Homilies Against the Jews)

 

Take a look at these words and compare them to those of Ratzinger/Benedict. These few paragraphs from Saint John Chrysostom are about as cogent a rebuttal to Ratzinger/Benedict's apostate words and actions as one is every going to find. Who pays synagogues honor as holy places? Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, that's who. He is an apostate. He is a true anti-Semite as he is content to leave people steeped in a dead, superseded religion in their false beliefs until the moments of their deaths, showing that he is their enemy unto eternity, not their friend as he is opposing that which can effect their salvation, namely, their conversion to the true Faith.

Alas, Catholics have become so accustomed to apostasy that they do not even blink when a putative "pope" violates the First and Second Commandments by entering into a synagogue, no less entering into that place of false worship without exhorting anyone that they need to the convert to the true Faith to save their immortal souls. Gone from the Catholic consciousness of most baptized Catholics are the truths written by Bishop George Hay over 200 years ago now::

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

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

 

No, Mr. Meotti, the man you think is the "pope" did not convey a "discreet" message exhorting the Jews to convert. He fully reaffirmed adherents of the Talmud in their thoroughly false religion:

10. Finally, I offer a particular reflection on this, our city of Rome, where, for nearly two millennia, as Pope John Paul II said, the Catholic Community with its Bishop and the Jewish Community with its Chief Rabbi have lived side by side.  May this proximity be animated by a growing fraternal love, expressed also in closer cooperation, so that we may offer a valid contribution to solving the problems and difficulties that we still face.

I beg from the Lord the precious gift of peace in the world, above all in the Holy Land.  During my pilgrimage there last May, at the Western Wall in Jerusalem, I prayed to Him who can do all things, asking: “Send your peace upon this Holy Land, upon the Middle East, upon the entire human family; stir the hearts of those who call upon your name, to walk humbly in the path of justice and compassion” (Prayer at the Western Wall of Jerusalem, 12 May 2009).

I give thanks and praise to God once again for this encounter, asking him to strengthen our fraternal bonds and to deepen our mutual understanding. (Ratzinger at Rome synagogue: ‘May these wounds be healed forever!’ )

 

Solve problems and difficulties? It is impossible to do that unless one has the spirit of the aforementioned Pope Saint Pius X, who wrote the following in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:

Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

No, Venerable Brethren, We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes it upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker - the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be setup unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants. omnia instaurare in Christo. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

 

Although the appendix below lists many other examples of how the lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have expressed "openness" to the false religion of Talmudic Judaism, suffice it for the moment to quote the conciliar church's little known but still nevertheless published "note," issued by the "Pontifical" Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews in 1985 (it was published on L'Ossevatore Romano on July 1, 1985, the Feast of the Most Precious Blood of Jesus) concerning the "enduring validity" of the Old Covenant of the Jews that ended with the Redemptive Act of Christ the King, the very Son of God made Man in the Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of God the Holy Ghost:

The permanence of Israel (while so many ancient peoples have disappeared without trace) is a historic fact and a sign to be interpreted within God's design. We must in any case rid ourselves of the traditional idea of a people punished, preserved as a living argument for Christian apologetic. It remains a chosen people, "the pure olive on which were grafted the branches of the wild olive which are the gentiles" (John Paul II, 6th March, 1982, alluding to Rom 11:17-24). We must remember how much the balance of relations between Jews and Christians over two thousand years has been negative. We must remind ourselves how the permanence of Israel is accompanied by a continuous spiritual fecundity, in the rabbinical period, in the Middle Ages and in modern times, taking its start from a patrimony which we long shared, so much so that "the faith and religious life of the Jewish people as they are professed and practised still today, can greatly help us to understand better certain aspects of the life of the Church" (John Paul II, March 6th, 1982). Catechesis should on the other hand help in understanding the meaning for the Jews of the extermination during the years 1939-1945, and its consequences. (Notes on the correct way to present the Jews and Judaism in Preaching and Catechesis.)

 

Anyone, including Mr. Meotti, who believes that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is willing to "receive" his "wayward" sheep in the Society of Saint Pius X into his church of apostasy by embracing "anti-Semitism" is simply detached from reality or seeking to roil the waters in order to make difficult a "reconciliation" that "ultra-progressives" inside of the conciliar structures fear will retard the revolutionary "progress" that they have made in the past fifty years in eradicating even the vestiges of Catholic Tradition from the hearts and minds of most Catholics. Quite the opposite is true! Ratzinger/Benedict believes that having a "neutralized" Society of Saint Pius X inside of his One World Ecumenical Church will "bring them around" to the conciliar view on all things, including that of the "enduring validity" of the so-called "faith of Israel." He is simply willing to do what his impatient "ultra-progressives," who are always useful to him to make him appear in the eyes of traditionally-minded Catholics in the conciliar structures to be a "sympathetic" "pope" under attack from his "left" flank, are unwilling to do: namely: wait out the "integrists" until the more "radical" of their number die out in due course.

I mean, after all, one just has to read the text of Jesus of Nazareth Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection to know Ratzinger/Benedict is a full supporter of the "faith of Israel." (See Coloring Everything He Says and Does, part one and Coloring Everything He Says and Does, part two.)

Ratzinger/Benedict himself is personally responsible for enabling and empowering the ancient enemies of the Church.

It was Ratzinger/Benedict who yielded to pressure from Talmudic organizations to "revise" the Good Friday Prayer for the Jews in the Missal of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII after the issuance of Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007.

It was, as noted above, Ratzinger/Benedict's officials at the time (Walter Kasper and Gianfranco Ravasi) who went to great lengths to appease the anger of leading adherents after the text of the "revised" Prayer for the Jews was released in February of 2008.

It was Ratzinger/Benedict who met in October of 2008 with a group of Talmudic representatives who were "concerned" about the conciliar "canonization" process of Pope Pius XII, prompting me to write the following at the time:

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI may very well proceed with the conciliar "canonization" of Pope Pius XII, although it appears now that there will indeed be a six or seven year period of delay as documents in the Vatican archives are reviewed. The mere fact, however, that he would give any credence whatsoever to a group of men who deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and who make war continuously against His Holy Mother Church and the right ordering of nations speaks volumes about the apostate nature of conciliarism. It does not enter into this "pope's" Modernist mind to exhort representatives of the blasphemous Talmud to convert unconditionally to the true Faith as Saint Peter exhorted the Jews on Pentecost Sunday and as Pope Saint Pius X did in his meeting the founder of international Zionism, Theodore Herzl, on January 25, 1904.

 

The conciliar "popes" have made it appear as though the Catholic Church needs "input" from those who deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ about how to express her doctrines and how to offer her Divine Liturgy and how she goes about the matter of her internal governance. Could anyone imagine the outrage if a Catholic sought to tell a rabbi what he should believe about his false religion and how he should conduct his synagogue services and how to govern his congregation? We know that such a person would be deemed as an "anti-Semite."

It is the conciliar "popes" who have given the ancient enemies of the Church "influence" within the halls of the counterfeit church of conciliar as they, the conciliar officials, have indeed changed the perennial doctrine and praxis of the Catholic Church dating back to Saint Peter's first Papal discourse on the first Pentecost Sunday. And it is simply dishonest for Mr. Meotti and his Talmudic friends to be at all concerned about any "rupture" with the spirit or the letter of the "magisterium" of the conciliar church's false teaching on the Jews, for whose conversion we must pray every day without fail.

By mixing truth with error, the counterfeit church of conciliarism confuses Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Indeed, the fact that Jews were absolutely clear concerning the Catholic Church's teaching about their dead, superseded religion prior to the "Second" Vatican Council and that they are unclear today is the result of the apostate spirit of contradiction that is included in the documents of the counterfeit church of conciliarism and by the words and actions of the conciliar "pontiffs" that sometimes go beyond conciliarism's "official" texts. None of this can come from the Catholic Church, as Pope Pius XI noted in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928:

For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

 

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 who make no concessions to conciliarism at all and as we give all of our efforts to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Our Lady of the Rosary, 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.

Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Fidelis of Sigmaringen, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints