Thomas A. Droleskey
Let the "canonization" circus begin yet again.
In days gone by, of course, conciliar revolutionaries such as Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II sought to give the appearance of "conservatism" while advancing with great vigor their false doctrines and sacrilegious liturgical rites, which the fourth conciliar "Petrine Minister" "beatified" Pope Pius IX, who had convened the [First] Vatican Council in 1869, and Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, who convened the "Second" Vatican Council on October 11, 1962, on the same day, September 3, 2000, which was, of course, the feast day of Pope Saint Pius X in the Catholic Church (not the conciliar church). This double "beatification" was designed to placate "conservatives" and traditionally-minded Catholics attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism while at the same time establishing the precedent of "beatifying" each of the conciliar "pontiffs" whose very beliefs and practices had been condemned by various general councils and true popes of the Catholic Church over the centuries.
Ah, there is to be no more placating "conservatives" and/or traditionally-minded Catholics, you know, those "rigid," "Pharisaical" people who want to return to the big, bad "no church" of the "preconciliar" era, under the "Petrine Ministry" of Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis. The revolution is in full throttle under the Jesuit lay revolutionary of Italian parentage and Argentinian birth. Francis The Flexible apparently is ready to stage a "double canonization" featuring none other than the corpulent old Modernist from Bergamo, Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, and the New Theologian from Poland, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II:
Wojtyla "instant saint" but along with John XXIII, the "Good Pope." This morning at the Vatican cardinals and bishops who are members of the “ordinary” Congregation of Saints, were meeting to examine various cases before the summer. Among these, the miracle attributed to the intercession of Blessed John Paul II, the instantaneous healing of a woman. The last crucial step before Francesco’s final seal of approval, which will lead to the canonization in record time, of the Polish Pontiff beatified two years ago.
But surprisingly, the cardinals and bishops will also discuss another subject, added in the last few days, the canonization of John XXIII, the Pope who convened the Second Vatican Council, who died fifty years ago in June and was beatified in 2000. An unexpected turn of events, which attests to the desire to celebrate the two sanctifications together, bringing the halo and the universal worship to both the Pope of Bergamo, and Pope John Paul II.
The most likely date for the ceremony during which Roncalli and Wojtyla could be canonized is next December, immediately after the conclusion of the Year of Faith, given that the initial hypothesis of October seems less and less feasible due to time constraints and organizational problems . Cardinal Angelo Amato, Prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, after the decision taken this morning, will meet Francesco and in the next few days the news of the two Popes Saints may be made permanently official.
It was John Paul II, in September 2000, during the Jubilee year, to proclaim John XXIII, Blessed, joining in the celebration was also the beatification of Pius IX, the last Pope king. On that occasion, moving Roncalli up his first step to the altar, was the miracle of healing to Sister Caterina Capitani, which occurred in 1966.
As is well known according to the canonical norms for canonization it is necessary to recognise a second miracle that occurs after the beatification. Over the last thirteen years there have been various reports of blessings and alleged miracles attributed to the intercession of Roncalli, but until recently it was not known that one of them had passed the scrutiny of medical consultations and theologians from the Vatican’s "factory of saints”. It is therefore possible that they have decided to shorten the timeframe. The Pope has the ability, if desired, to supersede the recognition of the miracle and proceed nonetheless with a canonization after having heard the advice of the cardinals in the congregation. (The Good Apostate and Figure of Antichrist, sainted within the year.)
Yes, step this way.
Get your programs in advance.
Watch the conciliar revolutionaries ape the practice of Roman emperors, who had busts of themselves placed throughout the Roman Empire, and of the French and Bolshevik and Maoist revolutionaries in establishing cults of personality that will continue after their deaths. The conciliar "canonization" process is a farce, and it is been used in many instances, including the upcoming "double canonization" of Roncalli and Wojtyla, to place beyond question the legitimacy of the false doctrines, liturgical rites and pastoral practices of conciliarism by claiming that those responsible for their promulgation and institutionalization enjoy the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven.
As time is brief, permit to enumerate some of the "heroic virtues" of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII that make him worthy of an ideological "canonization" at the hands of the current chief ideologist of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis.
Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII's Heroic Conciliar Virtue One
A Desire for A Rupture With The Past
Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII was the first conciliar
"pope." It was his call for an "opening" of the Catholic Church to the
world, that helped to make Catholics as immune to truth as Protestants
and outright unbelievers, Roncalli/John XXIII started a process of
breaking down the sensus Catholicus of ordinary Catholics that has now
spiraled out of control, producing a situation where most Catholics in
the world today have attitudes, beliefs and practices that are identical
with their non-Catholic friends and acquaintances.
Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII praised the Protestant syncretist Roger
Schutz, who was placed in "Heaven" by Ratzinger/Benedict almost
immediately after Schutz's murder on Tuesday, August 16, 2005, by
calling the syncretist center of Taize, France, as "that little
springtime. Father Didier Bonneterre included this telling sentence in
his book on the cast of characters, including Roncalli, who used the
Liturgical Movement as the means to enshrine false ecumenism:
After the death of John XXIII, his brother, Giuseppe Roncalli, visited
Taize. During his visit, Roncalli remarked to his grandson, "It was my
brother the Pope who began what will come out of Taize." (Father Didier
Bonneterre, The Liturgical Movement: Roots, Radicals, Results. Kansas City, Missouri: Angelus Press, 2002. p 101.)
More to the point, however, was that Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII was a
firm believer in the "new ecclesiology," that heresy that considers
Protestant sects as part of the "Church of Christ," a view he outlined
to Schutz himself shortly before he, Roncalli/John XXIII, had to answer
to God for his multiple apostasies at the moment of his Particular
Judgment on June 3, 1963:
Q. Did Brother Roger himself testify explicitly to that development?
A. Father Alois (Roger Schutz's successor at Taize): "He understood very early in his life that in order to pass on
the Gospel to young people a reconciliation of Christians was necessary.
After John XXIII and the Second Vatican Council, he considered that the
time for reconciliation had come. He often told how, during his last
meeting with John XXIII, in 1963, he was eager to hear a spiritual
testament from the pope and he asked him about the place of Taizé in the
Church. John XXIII replied, making circular gestures with his hands,
'The Catholic Church is made of concentric circles that are always
bigger and bigger.' The pope did not specify in which circle he saw
Taizé but Brother Roger understood that the pope wanted to say to him:
you are already within, continue simply on this path. And that is what
he did. (RORATE CÆLI)
Yes, Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII desired to have a complete rupture with the past, which is why he convened the "Second" Vatican Council, which opened on October 11, 1962:
Among these documents was a note by Msgr. Loris Capovilla, secretary of John XXIII in which, on behalf of the Pope, he gave instructions for the redaction of the Bull Humanae salutis, the bull that convened the Council. On the text typed by Capovilla, there are side notes handwritten by John XXIII himself. It is clearly affirmed in this text, Marco Roncalli assures us, that the Pope did not desire to follow the course of Vatican I because “neither in its substance nor in its form would it correspond to the present day situation.” We also see a rebuttal of the Church’s position on the temporal order taught by Pius IX, because now, the note emphasizes, “the Church demonstrates that she wants to be mater et magistra [mother and teacher].”
This revelation is, in my opinion, an extraordinary confirmation that John XXIII did not want any continuity with the previous Ecumenical Council convened and directed by Pius IX. When he affirmed that Vatican II must not follow Vatican I “either in its substance or in its form,” he was saying that it should be completely different; this is not far from saying that it should be the opposite.
Indeed, to say that the substance should be different means that the doctrine defended must be different. To say that the form should be different means that the militant character of Vatican I’s documents must be avoided. Incidentally, the reason alleged to explain a change in the Church’s position regarding the world - that now she wants to be mother and teacher - confirms that he wanted Vatican II to steer clear of the militant spirit of Vatican I. (Atila Sinka Guimaraes, John XXIII Wanted A Rupture With The Past.)
Angelo Roncalli/XXIII's desire for a rupture for the past was first signified by the furtherance of the liturgical revolution that had begun under the direction of Fathers Ferdinando Antonelli, O.F.M., and Annibale Bugnini, C.M., during the last ten years of the pontificate of Pope Pius XII:
succeeded by John XXIII. Angelo Roncalli. Throughout his ecclesiastical
career, Roncalli was involved in affairs that place his orthodoxy under
a cloud. Here are a few facts:
professor at the seminary of Bergamo, Roncalli was investigated for
following the theories of Msgr. Duchesne, which were forbidden under
Saint Pius X in all Italian seminaries. Msgr Duchesne's work, Histoire Ancienne de l'Eglise, ended up on the Index.
papal nuncio to Paris, Roncalli revealed his adhesion to the teachings
of Sillon, a movement condemned by St. Pius X. In a letter to the widow
of Marc Sagnier, the founder of the condemned movement, he wrote: The
powerful fascination of his [Sagnier's] words, his spirit, had enchanted
me; and from my early years as a priest, I maintained a vivid memory of
his personality, his political and social activity."
Patriarch of Venice, Msgr.Roncalli gave a public blessing to the
socialists meeting there for their party convention. As John XXIII, he
made Msgr. Montini a cardinal and called the Second Vatican Council. He
also wrote the Encyclical Pacem in Terris. The Encyclical uses a
deliberately ambiguous phrase, which foreshadows the same false
religious liberty the Council would later proclaim.
XXIII's attitude in matters liturgical, then, comes as no surprise. Dom
Lambert Beauduin, quasi-founder of the modernist Liturgical Movement,
was a friend of Roncalli from 1924 onwards. At the death of Pius XII,
Beauduin remarked: "If they elect Roncalli, everything will be saved; he
would be capable of calling a council and consecrating ecumenism..."'
On July 25, 1960, John XXIII published the Motu Proprio Rubricarum Instructum. He had already decided to call Vatican II and to proceed with changing
Canon Law. John XXIII incorporates the rubrical innovations of 1955–1956
into this Motu Proprio and makes them still worse. "We have reached the
decision," he writes, "that the fundamental principles concerning the
liturgical reform must be presented to the Fathers of the future
Council, but that the reform of the rubrics of the Breviary and Roman
Missal must not be delayed any longer."
framework, so far from being orthodox, with such dubious authors, in a
climate which was already "Conciliar," the Breviary and Missal of John
XXIII were born. They formed a "Liturgy of transition" destined to last —
as it in fact did last — for three or four years. It is a transition
between the Catholic liturgy consecrated at the Council of Trent and
that heterodox liturgy begun at Vatican II.
The "Antiliturgical Heresy" in the John XXIII Reform
already seen how the great Dom Guéranger defined as "liturgical heresy"
the collection of false liturgical principles of the 18th century
inspired by Illuminism and Jansenism. I should like to demonstrate in
this section the resemblance between these innovations and those of John
Since John XXIII's innovations touched the Breviary as well as the
Missal, I will provide some information on his changes in the Breviary
also. Lay readers may be unfamiliar with some of the terms concerning
the Breviary, but I have included as much as possible to provide the
"flavor" and scope of the innovations.
1. Reduction of Matins to three lessons. Archbishop
Vintimille of Paris, a Jansenist sympathizer, in his reform of the
Breviary in 1736, "reduced the Office for most days to three lessons, to
make it shorter." In 1960 John XXIII also reduced the Office of Matins
to only three lessons on most days. This meant the suppression of a
third of Holy Scripture, two-thirds of the lives of the saints, and the
whole of the commentaries of the Church Fathers on Holy Scripture.
Matins, of course, forms a considerable part of the Breviary.
2. Replacing ecclesiastical formulas style with Scripture. "The second principle of the anti-liturgical sect," said Dom Guéranger,
"is to replace the formulae in ecclesiastical style with readings from
Holy Scripture." While the Breviary of St. Pius X had the commentaries
on Holy Scripture by the Fathers of the Church, John XXIII's Breviary
suppressed most commentaries written by the Fathers of the Church. On
Sundays, only five or six lines from the Fathers remains.
3. Removal of saints' feasts from Sunday. Dom
Gueranger gives the Jansenists' position: "It is their [the
Jansenists'] great principle of the sanctity of Sunday which will not
permit this day to be 'degraded' by consecrating it to the veneration of
a saint, not even the Blessed Virgin Mary. A fortiori, the
feasts with a rank of double or double major which make such an
agreeable change for the faithful from the monotony of the Sundays,
reminding them of the friends of God, their virtues and their protection
— shouldn't they be deferred always to weekdays, when their feasts
would pass by silently and unnoticed?"
XXIII, going well beyond the well-balanced reform of St. Pius X,
fulfills almost to the letter the ideal of the Janenist heretics: only
nine feasts of the saints can take precedence over the Sunday (two
feasts of St. Joseph, three feasts of Our Lady, St. John the Baptist,
Saints Peter and Paul, St. Michael, and All Saints). By contrast, the
calendar of St. Pius X included 32 feasts which took precedence, many of
which were former holy days of obligation. What is worse, John XXIII
abolished even the commemoration of the saints on Sunday.
4. Preferring the ferial office over the saint’s feast. Dom Guéranger goes on to describe the moves of the Jansenists as
follows: "The calendar would then be purged, and the aim, acknowledged
by Grancolas (1727) and his accomplices, would be to make the clergy
prefer the ferial office to that of the saints. What a pitiful
spectacle! To see the putrid principles of Calvinism, so vulgarly
opposed to those of the Holy See, which for two centuries has not ceased
fortifying the Church's calendar with the inclusion' of new protectors,
penetrate into our churches!"
XXIII totally suppressed ten feasts from the calendar (eleven in Italy
with the feast of Our Lady of Loreto), reduced 29 feasts of simple rank
and nine of more elevated rank to mere commemorations, thus causing the
ferial office to take precedence. He suppressed almost all the octaves
and vigils, and replaced another 24 saints' days with the ferial office.
Finally, with the new rules for Lent, the feasts of another nine
saints, officially in the calendar, are never celebrated. In sum, the
reform of John XXIII purged about 81 or 82 feasts of saints, sacrificing
them to "Calvinist principles."
Gueranger also notes that the Jansenists suppressed the feasts of the
saints in Lent. John XXIII did the same, keeping only the feasts of
first and second class. Since they always fall during Lent, the feasts
of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Gregory the Great. St. Benedict, St. Patrick,
and St. Gabriel the Archangel would never be celebrated. (Liturgical Revolution)
Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII's desire for a "rupture with the past" was necessary for there to be an "ecclesiogenesis," if you will, that is, the birth of a new church, a counterfeit church that is the ape of the Catholic Church.
Part of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII's rupture with the past involved a "reconciliation" with the ancient enemies of Christ the King. Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII first "absolved" the Jews of any the
guilt of the shedding of the Most Precious Blood of the Divine Redeemer,
Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ before issuing an edict on March 21, 1959, ordered the removal of the
word "perfidious" from the Prayer for the Jews in the Good Friday
liturgy, thus setting the stage for the "Second" Vatican Council's Nostra Aetate, October 28, 1965:
True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for
the death of Christ;(13) still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged
against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of
today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be
presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy
Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the
preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to
the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ. (Nostra Aetate, October 28, 1965.)
It just happens to be that this false "teaching" requires us to believe
that the following Fathers and Doctors of Holy Mother Church were wrong,
that she herself was misled until the "truth" dawned during the age of
conciliarism at the beginning of the reign of Angelo Roncalli/John
XXIII as he prepared the way for its blossoming in Nostra Aetate:
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
(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)
Do not add to your sins
by saying that the Covenant is both theirs and ours. Yes, it is ours,
but they lost it forever. (St. Barnabas)
So clearly was the transition then made from the Synagogue to the
Church that, when the Lord gave up His soul, the veil of the Temple was
rent in two. (Pope St. Leo the Great)
Since His spouse, the Synagogue, refused to receive Him, Christ
answered: "This is a harlot!" and gave her a bill of divorce. (St.
Ungrateful for favors and forgetful of
benefits, the Jews return insult for kindness and impious contempt for
goodness. They ought to know the yoke of perpetual enslavement because
of their guilt. See to it that the perfidious Jews never in the future
grow insolent, but that they always suffer publicly the shame of their
sin in servile fear. (Pope Gregory IX)
Crucifiers of Christ ought to be held in continual subjection. (Pope Innocent III)
It would be licit, according to custom, to hold Jews in perpetual servitude because of their crime. (St. Thomas Aquinas)
Let the Gospel be preached to them and, if they remain obstinate, let them be expelled. (Pope Leo VII)
The Jews wander over the entire earth, their backs bent over and
their eyes cast downward, forever calling to our minds the curse they
carry with them. (St. Augustine)
As wanderers, they must remain upon the earth until their faces are
filled with shame and they seek the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. (Pope
One who dies a Jew will be damned. (St. Vincent Ferrer)
Those of the seed of Abraham who live according to the Law of Moses
and who do not believe in Christ before death shall not be saved;
especially they who curse this very Christ in the synagogues; who curse
everything by which they might obtain salvation and escape the vengeance
of fire. (St. Justin the Martyr)
Judaism, since Christ, is
a corruption; indeed, Judas is the image of the Jewish people: their
understanding of Scripture is carnal; they bear the guilt for the death
of the Savior, for through their fathers they have killed Christ. The
Jews held Him; the Jews insulted Him; the Jews bound Him; they crowned
Him with thorns; they scourged Him; they hanged Him upon a tree. (St.
Jews are slayers of the Lord, murderers of the prophets, enemies and
haters of God, adversaries of grace, enemies of their fathers' faith,
advocates of the devil, a brood of vipers, slanderers, scoffers, men of
darkened minds, the leaven of Pharisees, a congregation of demons,
sinners, wicked men, haters of goodness! (St. Gregory of Nyssa)
And such are the prayers of the Jews, for when they stretch
forth their hands in prayer, they only remind God-the-Father of their
sin against His Son. And at every stretching-forth of their hands, they
only make it obvious that they are stained with the blood of Christ. For
they who persevere in their blindness inherit the blood-guilt of their
fathers; for they cried out: "His blood be on us and on our children"
(Mt. 27:25). (St. Basil the Great)
Poor Jews! You invoked a dreadful curse upon your own heads; and
that curse, miserable race, you carry upon you to this day, and to the
End of Time you shall endure the chastisement of that innocent blood!
(St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori) [Each of the quotes cited after those of
Saint John Chrysostom were provided by a hard-working defender of the
Catholic Faith and a very good friend, Mr. Mark Stabinksi, who found
them in The Book of Faith, Book III, Chapter 4: THE ONCE-CHOSEN PEOPLE - NOW An Accursed Race, which itself is drawn from the Apostolic Digest and found on the Catholic Apologetics Info site; see also The same god that Benedict XVI worships with the Jews.)
That's a whole lot of mistakes that went uncorrected by the authority of
the Catholic Church until October 28, 1965, which was, not so
coincidentally, the seventh anniversary of the "election" of Angelo
Roncalli as the bogus "successor" of Pope Pius XII, who died on October
9, 1958. That's a whole lot of mistakes.
Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII's Heroic Conciliar Virtue Two
Patience With Errors in the World to Open What He Thought Was the Catholic Church to That Same World of Error
Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII was an unreconstructed Modernist, a man who never gave up his support for The Sillon even after it had been condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910, going to say as to damn the "holy Saint Pius X's" condemnation of The Sillon with faint praise as "affection and well-meaning" when writing to the widow of The Sillon's founder, Marc Sangnier, upon the latter's death on May 28, 1950:
Letter of the Apostolic Nuncio, Archbishop Angelo Roncalli, later Pope John XXIII, to Rénée Besançon Sangnier on the occasion of the death of her husband, Marc Sangnier, Pentecost Sunday, 28 May 1950
Paris, 6 June 1950
Madame Marc Sangnier
36, Boulevard Raspail, Paris
.... I heard Marc Sangnier speak for the first time in Rome around 1903 or 1904 at a meeting of Catholic youth. The powerful charisma of his words and his spirit enthralled me. The most vivid memory of my whole youth is of his personality and his political and social activity.
His noble and frank humility in later accepting the admonition of the holy Pope Pius X - moreover, a very affectionate and well-meaning admonition - were the true measure of his greatness in my eyes.
Souls as capable as his of remaining as faithful and respectful to the Gospel and to the Holy Church are made for the highest ascensions that ensure glory, namely the glory of Christ who knew how to exalt the humble, and even the glory of this world before his contemporaries and posterity for whom the example of Marc Sangnier will remain as lesson and as an encouragement.
On the occasion of his death, my spirit was truly comforted to note that the most high ranking official voices in France joined together unanimously like a mantle of honour to wreathe Marc Sangnier with the Sermon on the Mount. One could not pay greater tribute or praise to the memory of this French emblem whose contemporaries were capable of appreciating the clarity of a deeply Christian soul and a noble simplicity of heart. (Archbishop Angelo Roncalli, Letter to Renee Besancon Sangnier, June 6, 1950.)
In other words, Marc Sangnier was to be admired for having taken the "well-meaning" but, of course, mistaken admonition given him by the "holy Pope Pius X," not for having abandoned any of The Sillon's false principles that would serve as the very philosophical foundation of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII's "Petrine Ministry" and the whole ethos of the "Second" Vatican Council that he announced on January 25, 1959, would be held.
It was at the Opening Mass of the "Second" Vatican Council on October 11, 1962, that Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII laid down the principle of a respect for error that was the driving force of The Sillon:
In these days, which mark the beginning of this Second Vatican Council,
it is more obvious than ever before that the Lord's truth is indeed
eternal. Human ideologies change. Successive generations give rise to varying errors, and these often vanish as quickly as they came, like mist before the sun.
The Church has always opposed these errors, and often condemned them
with the utmost severity. Today, however, Christ's Bride prefers
the balm of mercy to the arm of severity. She believes that, present
needs are best served by explaining more fully the purport of her
doctrines, rather than by publishing condemnations.
Not that the need to repudiate and guard against erroneous teaching and dangerous ideologies is less today than formerly. But
all such error is so manifestly contrary to rightness and goodness, and
produces such fatal results, that our contemporaries show every
inclination to condemn it of their own accord—especially that way of
life which repudiates God and His law, and which places excessive
confidence in technical progress and an exclusively material prosperity.
It is more and more widely understood that personal dignity and true
self-realization are of vital importance and worth every effort to
achieve. More important still, experience has at long last taught men
that physical violence, armed might, and political domination are no
help at all in providing a happy solution to the serious problems which
affect them. (Angelo Roncalli/ John XXIII 's Opening Address)
Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII's
belief that errors "often vanish as quickly as they came, like mist
before sun" was and remains delusional. This is not a statement in
accord with an authentic history of the Catholic Church. Errors have had
to be exposed and fought by a multiplicity of means (prayer, fasting,
sacrifice, penance, suffering, martyrdom and copious verbal and written
condemnations.). Our Lady gave the Rosary to Saint Dominic de Guzman to
be a weapon he could use in his preaching against the Albingensians, the
forerunners of the Jansenists whose disciples persecuted then Sister
Margaret Mary Alacoque so very much because of the revelations given to
her by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ about the secrets
contained in His Most Sacred Heart. Errors must be exposed and opposed.
Part of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII's patience with error and openness to the world involve his agreement to the suppression of any mention, no less of criticism, of Communism at the "Second" Vatican Council in order to secure the attendance of "observers" from the heretical and schismatic Russian Orthodox Church:
In preparation for the
Council, Catholic bishops around the world were polled by mail by the
Office of the Secretariat to learn their opinions on topics to be
considered at the Council. Communism topped the list.
However, as documented in the previous chapter, at the instigation of
Cardinal Montini, two months before the opening of the Council, Pope
John XXIII approved the signing of the Metz Accord with Moscow
officials, whereby the Soviets would permit two representatives from the
Russian State Church to attend the Council in exchange for absolute and
total silence at the Council on the subject of Communism/Marxism.
With the exceptions of Cardinal Montini, who instructed Pope John to
enter into negotiations with the Soviets, Cardinal Eugene Tisserant, who
signed the Accord, and Bishop Jan Willebrands, who made the final
contacts with the representatives of the Russian State Church, the
Church Fathers at the Council were ignorant of the existence and nature
of the Metz Agreement and the horrendous betrayal that it represented. (Mrs. Randy Engel, The Rite of Sodomy, pp. 1135-1136)
Why didn’t the last Ecumenical Council condemn Communism? A secret accord made at Metz supplies an answer.
Those who pass by the
convent of the Little Sisters of the Poor in Borny - on the outskirts of
the French city of Metz - never imagine that something of
transcendental importance occurred in the residence of Fr. Lagarde, the
convent’s chaplain. In a hall of this religious residence in August 1962
- two months before Vatican Council II opened - a secret meeting of the
greatest importance between two high-ranking personalities took place.
One dignitary was a Cardinal of the Curia, Eugène
Tisserant, representing Pope John XXIII; the other was metropolitan
Nikodin, who spoke in the name of the Russian Schismatic Church.
This encounter had consequences that changed the direction of Council,
which was already prepared to open. In effect, the meeting at Metz
determined a change in the trajectory of the very History of the Church
in the 20th century.
What was the matter of such great importance that was resolved at his
meeting? Based on the documents that are known today, there it was
established that Communism would not be condemned by Vatican Council II.
In 1962, The Vatican and the Schismatic Russian Church came to an
agreement. According to its terms, the Russian “Orthodox Church” agreed
to send observers to Vatican II under the condition that no condemnation
whatsoever of communism should be made there (1). 1. Ulysses Floridi,
Moscou et le Vatican, Paris: France-Empire, Paris, 1979, pp. 147-48;
Romano Amerio, Iota Unum, K.C., MO: Sarto House, 1996, pp. 75-76; Ricardo de la Cierva, Oscura rebelion en la Iglesia, Barcelona: Plaza & Janes, 1987, pp. 580-81. And why were the consequences of such a pact so far-reaching and important?
Because in the 20th century a principal enemy of the Catholic Church was
Communism. As such, until Vatican II it had been condemned numerous
times by the Magisterium. Moreover, in the early ’60s a new condemnation
would have been quite damaging, since Communism was passing through a
serious crisis, both internally and externally. On one hand, it was
losing credibility inside the USSR since the people were becoming
increasingly discontent with the horrendous administrative results of 45
years of Communist demagogy. On the other hand, outside the USSR
Communism had not been able to persuade the workers and poor of free
countries to take up its banner. In fact, up until that time it had
never won a free election. Therefore, the leaders of international
Communism decided that it was time to begin to change the appearances of
the regime in order to retain the power they had and to experiment with
new methods of conquest. So in the ‘60s President Nikita Khrushchev
suddenly began to smile and talk about dialogue (2). 2. Plinio Correa de
Oliveira, Unperceived Ideological Transshipment and Dialogue,
New York: Crusade for a Christian Civilization, 1982, pp. 8-15. This
would have been a particularly inopportune moment for the Pope or the
Council to issue a formal condemnation, which could have either
seriously damaged or possibly even destroyed the Communist regime..
A half secret act
Speaking about the liberty at Vatican II to deal with diverse topics,
Professor Romano Amerio revealed some previously unpublished facts. “The
salient and half secret point that should be noted,” he stated, “is the
restriction on the Council’s liberty to which John XXIII had agreed a
few months earlier, in making an accord with the Orthodox Church by
which the patriarchate of Moscow accepted the papal invitation to send
observers to the Council, while the Pope for his part guaranteed the
Council would refrain from condemning Communism. The negotiations took
place at Metz in August 1962, and all the details of time and place were
given at a press conference by Mgr. Paul Joseph Schmitt, the Bishop of
that Diocese [newspaper Le Lorrain, 2/9/63]. The negotiations
ended in an agreement signed by metropolitan Nikodim for the Orthodox
Church and Cardinal Tisserant, the Dean of the Sacred College of
Cardinals, for the Holy See.
“News of the agreement was given in the France Nouvelle, the
central bulletin of the French communist party in the edition of January
16-22, 1963 in these terms: ‘Because the world socialist system is
showing its superiority in an uncontestable fashion, and is strong
through the support of hundreds and hundreds of millions of men, the
Church can no longer be content with a crude anti-communism. As part of
its dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church, it has even promised
there will be no direct attack on the Communist system at the Council.’
On the Catholic side, the daily La Croix of February 15, 1963
gave notice of the agreement, concluding: “‘As a consequence of this
conversation, Msgr. Nikodim agreed that someone should go to Moscow
carrying an invitation, on condition that guarantees were given
concerning the apolitical attitude of the Council.’
“Moscow’s condition, namely that the Council should say nothing about
Communism, was not, therefore, a secret, but the isolated publication of
it made no impression on general opinion, as it was not taken up by the
press at large and circulated, either because of the apathetic and
anaesthetized attitude to Communism common in clerical circles or
because the Pope took action to impose silence in the matter.
Nonetheless, the agreement had a powerful, albeit silent, effect on the
course of the Council when requests for a renewal of the condemnation of
Communism were rejected in order to observe this agreement to say
nothing about it” (3). 3. Romano Amerio, Iota Unum, pp. 65-66.
Thus the Council, which made statements on capitalism and colonialism,
said nothing specific about the greatest evil of the age, Communism.
While the Vatican Monsignors were smiling at the Russian Schismatic
representatives, many Bishops were in prison and innumerable faithful
were either persecuted or driven underground for their fidelity to the
Holy Roman Catholic Church.
The Kremlin-Vatican negotiations
This important information about Vatican-Kremlin negotiations is
confirmed in an article ‘The mystery of the Rome-Moscow pact’ published
in the October 1989 issue of 30 Dias, which quotes statements made by the Bishop of Metz, Paul Joseph Schmitt. In a February 9, 1963 interview with the newspaper Republicain Lorrain, Mgr. Schmitt said:
“It was in our region that the ‘secret’ meeting
of Cardinal Tisserant with archbishop Nikodin occurred. The exact place
was the residence of Fr. Lagarde, chaplain for the Little Sister of the Poor in Borny [on the outskirts of Metz]. Here for the first time the
arrival of the prelates of the Russian Church was mentioned. After this
meeting, the conditions for the presence of the Russian church’s
observers were established by Cardinal Willebrands, an assistant of
Cardinal Bea. Archbishop Nikodin agreed that an official invitation
should be sent to Moscow, with the guarantee of the apolitical character
of the Council” (4). 4. 30 Dias, October 1988, pp. 55-56.
The same source also transcribed a letter of Bishop Georges Roches regarding the Pact of Metz:
“That accord was negotiated between the Kremlin
and the Vatican at the highest level .… But I can assure you …. that the
decision to invite Russian Orthodox observers to Vatican Council II was
made personally by His Holiness John XXIII with the encouragement of
Cardinal Montini, who was counselor to the Patriarch of Venice when he
was Archbishop of Milan…. Cardinal Tisserant received formal orders to
negotiate the accord and to make sure that it would be observed during
the Council” (5). 5. Ibid. p. 57
In a book published some time after this, German
theologian Fr. Bernard Häring - who was secretary-coordinator at the
Council for the redaction of Gaudium et Spes - revealed the
more profound reason for the ‘pigeon-holing’ of apetition that many
conciliar Fathers signed asking Paul VI and the Council to condemn
Communism: “When around two dozen Bishops requested a solemn
condemnation of Communism,” stated Fr. Häring, “Msgr. Glorieux …. and I
were blamed like scapegoats. I have no reason to deny that I did
everything possible to avoid this condemnation, which rang out clearly
like a political condemnation. I knew that John XXIII had promised
Moscow authorities that the Council would not condemn communism in order
to assure the participation of observers of the Russian Orthodox
church” (6). . . .
1. Catholic doctrine has always emphatically
condemned Communism. It would be possible, should it be necessary, to
publish a small book composed exclusively of anti-communist pontifical
2. It would have been natural, therefore, for Vatican Council II, which
met in Rome from 1962 to 1965, to have confirmed these condemnations
against the greatest enemy of the Church and Christian Civilization in
the 20th century.
3. In addition to this, 213 Cardinals, Archbishops, and Bishop solicited
Paul VI to have the Council make such a condemnation. Later, 435
Conciliar Fathers repeated the same request. The two petitions were duly
delivered within the time limits established by the Internal Guidelines of the Council. Nonetheless, inexplicably, neither petition ever came
up for debate. The first was not taken into consideration. As for the
second, after the Council had closed, it was alleged that it had been
“lost” by Mgr. Achille Glorieux, secretary of the commission that would
have been entrusted with the request.
4. The Council closed without making any express censure of Communism.
Why was no censure made? The matter seemed wrapped in an enigmatic fog.
Only later did these significant facts on the topic appear. The point of
my article is to gather and present information from several different
sources for the consideration of my reader. How can the actions of the
Catholic Prelates who inspired, ordered, followed and maintained the
decisions of the Pact of Metz be explained? I leave the answer to my
reader. (The Council of Metz)
Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII's Metz Accord stands in sharp contrast with Pope Pius XI's firm and unequivocal condemnation of Communism in Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937:
See to it, Venerable Brethren, that the Faithful do not allow themselves to be deceived! Communism is intrinsically wrong, and no
one who would save Christian civilization may collaborate with it in
any undertaking whatsoever. Those who permit themselves to be deceived
into lending their aid towards the triumph of Communism in their own
country, will be the first to fall victims of their error. And the
greater the antiquity and grandeur of the Christian civilization in the
regions where Communism successfully penetrates, so much more
devastating will be the hatred displayed by the godless. (Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937.)
Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII's Heroic Conciliar Virtue Three
Peace Through the United Nations, Not Christ the King and Our Lady's Fatima Message
Angelo Roncalli/John XIII's humanist manifesto, Pacem in Terris (April 11, 1963), was the antithesis of Pope Pius XI's Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio (December
23, 1922), containing the following telling passage that could have
come straight from The Sillon that he supported even after its
condemnation by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique:
It is, therefore, especially to
the point to make a clear distinction between false philosophical
teachings regarding the nature, origin, and destiny of the universe and
of man, and movements which have a direct bearing either on economic and
social questions, or cultural matters or on the organization of the
state, even if these movements owe their origin and inspiration to these
false tenets. While the teaching once it has been clearly set forth is
no longer subject to change, the movements, precisely because they take
place in the midst of changing conditions, are readily susceptible of
change. Besides, who can deny that those movements, in so far as
they conform to the dictates of right reason and are interpreters of the
lawful aspirations of the human person, contain elements that are
positive and deserving of approval?
For these reasons it can at times happen that
meetings for the attainment of some practical results which previously
seemed completely useless now are either actually useful or may be
looked upon as profitable for the future. But to decide whether this
moment has arrived, and also to lay down the ways and degrees in which
work in common might be possible for the achievement of economic,
social, cultural, and political ends which are honorable and useful:
these are the problems which can only be solved with the virtue of
prudence, which is the guiding light of the virtues that regulate the
moral life, both individual and social. Therefore, as far as Catholics
are concerned, this decision rests primarily with those who live and
work in the specific sectors of human society in which those problems
arise, always, however, in accordance with the principles of the natural
law, with the social doctrine of the church, and with the directives of
ecclesiastical authorities. For it must not be forgotten that the
Church has the right and the duty not only to safeguard the principles
of ethics and religion, but also to intervene authoritatively with Her
children in the temporal sphere, when there is a question of judging the
application of those principles to concrete cases. (Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, Pacem in Terris, April 11, 1963.)
In other words, who cares about the Social Reign of
Christ the King. Not the conciliar "popes," including the first of their
number, Roncalli/John XIII, who was sold bold as to decide not to
release the authentic Third Secret of Fatima in 1960, reportedly telling
aides that "This is not for our time." (For a purported rendition of the Third Secret of Fatima that was published recently, please see The True Third Secret of Fatima?)
Yes, we can see the results, can we not?
Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII's expressed support within the text of Pacem in Terris for the United Nations was a direct contradiction of Pope Pius XI's mockery of the League of Nations and all other such organizations as found in his first encyclical letter, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922. See for yourselves:
142. The United Nations Organization (U.N.) was established, as is well
known, on June 26, 1945. To it were subsequently added lesser organizations
consisting of members nominated by the public authority of the various nations
and entrusted with highly important international functions in the economics,
social, cultural, educational and health fields. The United Nations Organization
has the special aim of maintaining and strengthening peace between nations, and
of encouraging and assisting friendly relations between them, based on the
principles of equality, mutual respect, and extensive cooperation in every field
of human endeavor.
143. A clear proof of the farsightedness of this organization is provided by
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights passed by the United Nations General
Assembly on December 10, 1948. The preamble of this declaration affirms that the
genuine recognition and complete observance of all the rights and freedoms
outlined in the declaration is a goal to be sought by all peoples and all
144. We are, of course, aware that some of the points in the declaration did
not meet with unqualified approval in some quarters; and there was justification
for this. Nevertheless, We think the document should be considered a step in the
right direction, an approach toward the establishment of a juridical and
political ordering of the world community. It is a solemn recognition of the
personal dignity of every human being; an assertion of everyone's right to be
free to seek out the truth, to follow moral principles, discharge the duties
imposed by justice, and lead a fully human life. It also recognized other rights
connected with these.
145. It is therefore Our earnest wish that the United Nations Organization
may be able progressively to adapt its structure and methods of operation to the
magnitude and nobility of its tasks. May the day be not long delayed when every
human being can find in this organization an effective safeguard of his personal
rights; those rights, that is, which derive directly from his dignity as a human
person, and which are therefore universal, inviolable and inalienable. This is
all the more desirable in that men today are taking an ever more active part in
the public life of their own nations, and in doing so they are showing an
increased interest in the affairs of all peoples. They are becoming more and
more conscious of being living members of the universal family of mankind. (Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, Pacem in Terris, April 11, 1963.)
Because the Church is by divine institution
the sole depository and interpreter of the ideals and teachings of
Christ, she alone possesses in any complete and true sense the power
effectively to combat that materialistic philosophy which has already
done and, still threatens, such tremendous harm to the home and to the
state. The Church alone can introduce into society and maintain therein
the prestige of a true, sound spiritualism, the spiritualism of
Christianity which both from the point of view of truth and of its
practical value is quite superior to any exclusively philosophical
theory. The Church is the teacher and an example of world
good-will, for she is able to inculcate and develop in mankind the "true
spirit of brotherly love" (St. Augustine, De Moribus Ecclesiae
Catholicae, i, 30) and by raising the public estimation of the value and
dignity of the individual's soul help thereby to lift us even unto God.
Finally, the Church is able to set both public and
private life on the road to righteousness by demanding that everything
and all men become obedient to God "Who beholdeth the heart," to His
commands, to His laws, to His sanctions. If the teachings of the Church
could only penetrate in some such manner as We have described the inner
recesses of the consciences of mankind, be they rulers or be they
subjects, all eventually would be so apprised of their personal and
civic duties and their mutual responsibilities that in a short time
"Christ would be all, and in all." (Colossians iii, 11)
Since the Church is the safe and sure guide to conscience, for
to her safe-keeping alone there has been confided the doctrines and the
promise of the assistance of Christ, she is able not only to bring
about at the present hour a peace that is truly the peace of Christ, but
can, better than any other agency which We know of, contribute greatly
to the securing of the same peace for the future, to the making
impossible of war in the future. For the Church teaches (she alone has
been given by God the mandate and the right to teach with authority)
that not only our acts as individuals but also as groups and as nations
must conform to the eternal law of God. In fact, it is much more
important that the acts of a nation follow God's law, since on the
nation rests a much greater responsibility for the consequences of its
acts than on the individual.
When, therefore, governments and nations follow in
all their activities, whether they be national or international, the
dictates of conscience grounded in the teachings, precepts, and example
of Jesus Christ, and which are binding on each and every individual,
then only can we have faith in one another's word and trust in the
peaceful solution of the difficulties and controversies which may grow
out of differences in point of view or from clash of interests. An
attempt in this direction has already and is now being made; its
results, however, are almost negligible and, especially so, as far as
they can be said to affect those major questions which divide seriously
and serve to arouse nations one against the other. No merely human
institution of today can be as successful in devising a set of
international laws which will be in harmony with world conditions as the
Middle Ages were in the possession of that true League of Nations,
Christianity. It cannot be denied that in the Middle Ages this law was
often violated; still it always existed as an ideal, according to which
one might judge the acts of nations, and a beacon light calling those
who had lost their way back to the safe road.
There exists an institution able to
safeguard the sanctity of the law of nations. This institution is a part
of every nation; at the same time it is above all nations. She enjoys,
too, the highest authority, the fullness of the teaching power of the
Apostles. Such an institution is the Church of Christ. She alone is
adapted to do this great work, for she is not only divinely commissioned
to lead mankind, but moreover, because of her very make-up and the
constitution which she possesses, by reason of her age-old traditions
and her great prestige, which has not been lessened but has been greatly
increased since the close of the War, cannot but succeed in such a
venture where others assuredly will fail. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)
Pacem in Terris was written by a man possessed of the Judeo-Masonic ethos of The Sillon.
Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio was written by a Catholic and a true Successor of Saint Peter.
What counts for "heroic virtues" in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, supported, of course, by claims of miraculous deeds, are hideous in the sight of the true God of Divine Revelation as the counterfeit church of conciliarism is not the Catholic Church.
Spend time in prayer before the Real Presence of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour if this is possible where you live. Keep praying as many Rosaries each day as your state-in-life permits. Offer everything up to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Know this and know it well: the Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph in the end!
Viva Cristo Rey!
Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, 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.
Pope Saint Leo II, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?