Truth and v2 Strojie

The price for one copy of this booklet $2:
five copies for $7. Order from: W. F. Strojie,
41695 Clark-Smith Dr., Lebanon, OR 97355.
15
June
1979
TRUTH AND
VATICAN Il
Our Lord said of Satan that he “’stood not in the truth, a liar and
murderer
from
the
beginning.””
St.
Paul
predicted
an
‘‘operation of error’”’ inthe latter days, at which time many will
be lost because they had insufficient love for the truth. Thus, we
come full circle from the beginning of Creation to the end of
time.
What is this operation of error? Surely it is connected with
that ‘‘loosing of Satan’’ St. John foretold in his Apocalypse. Ina
broad sense it can be seen in the worldwide substitution of evil
propaganda for truth -- printing all the news that fits, etc.;
words used to deceive, rather than as signs and symbols of true
meaning. Ina special sense this operation of error attacks truth
at its earthly center, the divine deposit of Faith, by means of a
Vatican council and grab of the papal chair. Shocking? Of
course not. When has the devil ever neglected the papal chair.
Yet it is to be only near the end of time that the devil could
expect considerable success there -- the operation of error
which would bring on the Scriptural Great Apostacy.
The devil makes truth his own -- Theosophy, the pretended
search for truth, a pretended inner truth, higher truth, inSpiration; truth through dialogue between persons holding
different ‘truths’. Since the beginning of the Second Vatican
Council, in the name of ecumenical dialogue, truth the Catholic
Church has always taught with certainty has been questioned,
distorted, ‘dialogued’, and indirectly denied. Latest expression
of this is contained in John Paul 2’s first encyclical where he
speaks of ‘‘a shared investigation of the truth in the full
evangelical and Christian sense,’’ and of a ‘’coming together
with the representatives of non-Christian religions, an activity
expressed by dialogue, contacts, prayer in common,” etc.
Consider the hundreds of sects and non-Christian religions, all
disagreeing with each other, as a source of Catholic doctrine!
Paul 6 spoke often of this search for truth, and of a search for a
“man who will save us.’’ Strange words. Following Montini, his
‘revered Paul VI, truly my father’’, John Paul 2 in his first
encyclical changes ‘| am the Way, the Truth, and the Life” toa
vague notion of man as the ‘’Church’s way”.
It is not as though the Catholic people were being deceived by
a subtle heresy, as happened at times in the past. Not at all. The
whole show is carried on in the open, so that all can see who will
see. Walk into any parish church, read the books of the New
Order of Worship, including the idiotic, revolutionary, minddestroying hymns. See the priest at the new Assembly, still
wearing his priestly vestments but acting as no more than
leader of the worship service. He produces a cup and some
bread and amid more or less commotion his ‘’supper’’ is
distributed; perhaps by the new “extraordinary ministers,”
male and female, to all present. That is what remains of the
Mass.
That stupid little table standing out before the beautiful old
altar
is sign and
symbol
of the already
accomplished
degradation of the Catholic priesthood.
You are used fo the “‘new way’’? Your parish priest performs
it reverently? The priests are assigned according to the more or
less ‘conservative’ make-up of the parish, high or low church.
This is adaptation, one of the words which has come into
frequent use since the Council, and which appears as a principle
in the Articles of the Liturgy.
One of the deceptions practiced from the first was to write in
the Articles on the Liturgy that Latin was fo be retained, which
provision was ignored from the start. Vatican 2 Articles are all
used this way. It doesn’t matter whether they contain explicit
heresy. Who would think of consulting them? Change, change,
adapt, adapt; two steps forward, one apparent step backward -although | can’t really recall a step backward, except when
they revised Article 7 (after some complaints) so that it doesn’t
define the Mass exclusively as a supper. Typically, no more
than that was done.
Now the nun who in white pants suit comes to give communion to the sick. We see from this what the reverend clergy
think today of what they call simply the Eucharist. Gone are the
solemn moments when the priest arrived with the Blessed
Sacrament, when a candle was lit and all knelt in silence. What
to do about the nun? Have her thrown out. Refuse also to admit
priests who are party to the current corruption of Catholic
sacraments and belief. To act in this way is to give testimony of
your belief in the true Holy Eucharist.
What about the priest who wears two hats, a modified Trent
hat, say at eight oclock, then a New Order hat at eleven? Where
4
is the truth in such a man? This kind of priest typifies and acts
out that ambiguity which is the chief mark of Vatican 2 policy
and action.
| have mentioned high and low church parishes. In this archdiocese | have looked into what might be described as
restrained Lutheran-Episcopalian ex-Catholic parishes, and
those | think of as Marxist-Holy Roller. But in both are used the
same ‘missal’ and hymn book, full of unbelievable banalities, a
“hiya God, you’re a good fellow”’ kind of mockery. ‘“Yahweh,
Yahweh, Yahweh...
.the spirit is a-moving all over. . .shalom,
shalom, shalom.’’
Who are the priests party to this corruption of the Sacraments
and Catholic belief? They are all who are going along with the
New Order of Worship, composed
in company with nonCatholics and imposed by Paul 6 and the Vatican 2 bishops.
They are all the parish priests today, however much they
deceive
themselves
about
their
Catholic
intention
and
obedience.
One of the underlying deceits of the devil and New Clergy, is
to use emotionalism to wipe out Catholic doctrine from the
minds of their people. Most of the old reformers have done this.
Following these older Protestants our formerly Catholic clergy
have replaced recollection, adoration, and interior prayer with
hymn singing and socializing -- the social and religious as one
thing, as at the synagogue. In this connection | have at hand a
five-page letter of abuse by an older woman, addressed to a
man who talked against the absurd Service of Resurrection.
This woman, a Catholic from near birth, lays it down as doctrine that “Religion is in the heart, not the mind!’’ This notion,
_if it were true, would make straw of the writings of the Apostles
themselves; of St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas,
the solemn pronouncements of the Popes, and the writings of a
hundred other Doctors, Fathers and Saints of the Church. Yet it
is the operative assumption of the mod parish. Those who
believe this lie are open to the most nonsensical and diabolic
errors.
The Vatican 2 reformers have used emotionalism freely from
the
first,
with
their
‘inner
light’
and
‘charisma’,
‘Spirit
of
Vatican 2’ fakery. The result of such abandonment of reason
and doctrine appears
in the general
silliness and
sentimentalism, and the great falling away, which we see around
us. The general abandonment of reason is quite evident, in that
most Catholics refuse to see the resulting moral and intellectual
confusion; the clergy refuse to heed reliable statistics of
present chaos. In all quarters, whether reform or so-called
Traditionalist, there has been taking place a flight from reality.
Anyway, ‘‘Intellect is the
the first theological virtue.’’
taught, and doubtless other
the Church St. John knew as
man.
first faculty of the soul;
That is what St. John of
theologians. As mystical
much about the heart as
pure faith
the Cross
doctor of
any other
In the letter just cited appears one other item of deceit which
has been instilled surreptiously
into the minds of New
Catholics
-- that truth cannot exist outside the majority, the Vatican 2
‘“concensus’’. And so those few Catholics who now speak plainly
what had always been accepted as Catholic doctrine, are called
dissenters, which of course we are. The trickery consists in the
usual evil revolutionary practice of words distortion. In this
case ‘‘dissenter’’ is made to seem a necessarily bad word, as it
always is among Communists whose thing is “’solidarity’’. This
Same woman writer referred to, directs another Communist
epithet at the man to whom she is writing -- ‘“‘hate monger’”’.
‘‘Hate monger” is a term freely used by those who have made
of anger, hatred and envy a science for creating disorder, and
whose greeting to decent orderly people consists of sullen looks
and the clenched fist. | have at hand a photo of three very hardfaced Catholic bishops, in which the one on the right extends
into the middle of the group a prominent upraised clenched fist.
The clenched fist or claw is a suitable sign for those bishops who
follow the popes of the crooked cross.
| Know from reading thousands of letters since | began
publishing eight years ago, that many used to go home from the
new services every Sunday angry and frustrated; but perhaps
most of these have since let go their sanity and got with if.
Others go along unthinkingly, like sheep or cows, to be aroused
at their parish church by the new emotional climate of ‘participation’. Many husbands and wives are bitterly divided over
the reforms -- what an effect of a supposed-to-be Catholic
renewal! Children of these parents are of course confused; they
will never become unconfused but will be lost to the Faith.
Thousands of adults, lifetime Catholics and pre-Vatican 2
converts, have dropped out; fifty-percent or so in Europe. What
we now have are parishes no less reformed than were those in
Germany in the time of Luther. Yet John Paul 2 says that
Vatican 2 is a ‘‘solemn obligation which must be put info effect.’
6
Why do | keep harping on John Paul 2? Because this which he
says must be put into effect is the last phase of the Vatican 2
deception, the final transformation to a Church outwardly
Catholic but emptied of what is distinctively Catholic doctrine.
John Paul will do this by making it appear that he is returning
to orthodoxy and Catholic regularity in general. More on this
later.
The first lie we heard from those who promoted the Council,
was that the idea of it came to John 23 by inspiration of the Holy
Spirit. | had heard of a coming Council ten years before John 23
got his inspiration. As | have shown in other writings, the whole
program for this Council could be found before 1925, in the
writings of Theosophist Liberal Old R.C. Bishop Leadbeater; in
his ‘The Science of the Sacraments,”’ particularly chapter one,
‘‘A New Idea of Church Worship,’’ and in excerpts | have
elsewhere quoted from Peter Anson’s ‘‘Bishops at Large.”’
The second lie of the Conciliarists was that the Council would
be simply ‘’pastoral’’. By Catholics this was naturally taken to
mean that the Council decrees would not be doctrinally binding.
Yet, acting contrary to this implied promise, the Council
declared a New Beginning, a New Pentecost, proclaiming a
new spirit, that of Vatican 2. In his first encyclical letter John
Paul 2 affirms this new spirit, and he contradicts the implied
exclusive ‘‘pastoral’’ intention of the Council in these words:
‘‘The picture that was so perspicaciously and authoritatively
traced by the Second Vatican Council’... ‘‘Authoritatively’’,
the head man now says. And despite the chaos which all, including interested non-Catholics, can see, he calls the Counciliarist vision ‘“‘perspicacious’’, meaning,
according
to a
Standard dictionary at hand, “‘having keen judgement or understanding; acutely perceptive, having keen vision.”’ | do not
question the keenness of vision of those organized forces which
SO quickly took over direction of the Council, to which John Paul
2 repeatedly affirms his loyalty. The result, I’m sure, is what
they intended.
The third main lie of the Council was that, being inspired by
the Holy Spirit, it would bring about a great renewal. Was this a
lie or an error of judgement? It was a lie because, whereas
Catholics naturally understood a promise of Catholic renewal,
what the reformers had in mind was not that at all. This we
know now because of their insistence on Vatican 2 as a New
Beginning, “‘a new economy of the Gospel’ (Paul 6), a spirit of
ecumenism; a search for truth with the representatives of other
religions, as John Paul 2 affirmed in his first encyclical. This of
course was new, rather Theosophist, doctrine, opposed to all the
Church had taught prior to Vatican 2. The authority for this new
doctrine is not clearly stated in terms of papal infallibility,
though this is implied. The new doctrine is imposed on Catholics
by the local parish clergy. Thus, in this contrived confusion
parish priests are all little popes, herding their sheep into new
folds and strange pastures. And while everything is changed,
including the sacramental forms, we are told that ‘‘nothing
essential has been changed.’’ Really, my numbering of Council
lies one, two, three, etc. is quite inadequate, for there are lies
within lies, most of which are now leading to open contradictions of each other, as habitual lying will do.
Older Catholics will surely remember that in about every
Catholic publication during the time of the Council, there appeared opinions on what Catholic customs could be thrown out
as ‘‘non-essential’’. Never was the Mohammedan, the Hun, the
Jew, more ardent in his desire to see destroyed all that was
distinctively Catholic. Seminarians were especially vocal in
this. From their professors they had been given the latest in the
_ New Thinking.
In the name of the Spirit of Vatican 2 (that is, of the Father of
Lies), and with the sanction and help of those men who have
occupied the papal chair since the death of Pius XII, all things
become possible among Catholics too much affected by the
modern insanity, the mind-sickness which leads fo religious,
social and political decay, followed by civil strife, the beginnings of which we already experience.
As already implied, the Big Lie without which all the others
would fail, is that we are required to follow the pope in whatever
he commands -- this from Paul 6 who condemned not one of the
thousands of bishops, priests and theologian heretics. Here are
the words of Paul 6 on that, from the high balcony of the Vatican
palace, 29 June 1970: ‘’All must obey him (the pope) in
whatever he orders, if they wish to be associated with him in the
new economy of the Gospel.’’ This is the kind of blind obedience
contrary to the constant
the Vatican 2 church demands,
teaching of the Catholic Church from the time of the Apostles.
This Big Lie, the necessary lie, is the big stick with which the
Catholic clergy will beat those who tell the truth about their
treason. ‘‘Get with the pope,”’ they will say. That is all the
Catholic religion they yet retain, even this little bit being
distorted.
Why are the leaders of the reformed clergy always talking
‘‘authentic’’? Because they are fakes themselves and are
conscious of it in their inner awareness. Men who habitually
speak the old truths do not need to be always assuring us that
what they say is authentic. Yet there is this further use of
‘‘authentic’’ among the brothers conscious of their common
diabolic aims: they use it as a signal to the others that when
they speak an apparently Catholic truth, they do so in
special gnostic sense. Quite surely most of the Vatican
are of the inner or esoteric circle of the ‘advanced’
others go along in accordance with the heresy of
infallibility, not officially proclaimed as such but
Understood and accepted.
their own
2 bishops
faith. The
unlimited
generally
With regard to papal infallibility and the First Vatican
Council which defined it (not as new doctrine but old), some
influential conservative publishers and a considerable number
of the bishops present at Vatican One spoke for acceptance of
all the pope’s official pronouncements as infallible. Others
balked at this, pointing out that in the past popes had erred in
their personal theology and in more or less official actions and
teachings. Bishops of this mind demanded a precise definition
of the limits of papal infallibility, which is what the First
Vatican Council produced, and which Pope Pius |X signed as
Catholic doctrine. The Second Vatican Council has done and
continues to do what is opposed fo this definition, that the pope
speaks infallibly only when teaching solemnly, for the whole
Church, with the clear intention of doing so, some doctrine of
faith or morals. The Vatican 2 Council interpreters pretend that
the pope speaks always infallibly, in the name of the Holy
Spirit, following a Vatican 2 New Pentecost. In the name of the
. Holy Spirit, charisma replaces Catholic doctrine. Charisma is
the new doctrine, which is of the devil. In the name of this false
doctrine is imposed every departure from Catholic custom and
doctrine, as infallible without question. It is the main heresy of
the parish clergy today, whether or not they are for the reform
or merely go along with it, as they deceive themselves, in
obedience. This, as | say, constitutes the Big Lie of Vatican 2,
that all must follow the pope in ‘‘whatever he orders’”’. It is no
incidental lie but one well planned in advance. For in no other
way could the Catholic Church
be transformed
into the
Universal church of ecumenism and marxist political and social
reform, as it has been since the Council. As | have seldom failed
to mention in my writings, Pope St. Pius X clearly exposed this
move of our enemies, even in 1903 well advanced, to take over
from within.
What is most exasperating about the Vatican 2 fraud, is that
those who go along with the reformed church (actually a
counter-church within) do not say, as they honestly should: ‘’|
no longer believe as a Catholic. | reject absolutism in morals
and dogma. | am now an ecumenist, a searcher.’’ No, they do
not say that. Instead, many of them continue to call themselves
Catholic. Mostly they prefer to be called Christian. But by one
name or another they pretend that those who continue to hold
fast to Catholic customs and beliefs have gone astray.
‘“Yes,’” most of these people will tell you, “I believe the same
as always, the Articles of the Catholic Faith.’’ But it is quite
impossible that with continued participation in an ecumenical
liturgy, which signifies falsely -- ‘“departs radically from
Catholic doctrine, on the whole and in its parts,’’ as two cardinals and their thirty-two associate theologians pointed out in
detail -- that the quality and substance of Catholic belief can
remain unaltered. Briefly, those who take part in the New
Order of Worship are fast on their way to losing the Faith, if
they have not already lost it. | pass over here the effects of
modernist and marxist sermons, and the bad example of unholy
living of the Vatican 2-trained clergy. Books could be written on
the bad state of the seminaries since long before Vatican 2. Far
from
showing
any
improvement
since the Council,
the
seminaries have become far worse; where indeed they have not
been closed, and the buildings sold.
The generality of Catholics, including the lower clergy and
nutty nuns, if they wanted a Lutheran or Holy Roller religion,
why didn’t they join one of the hundreds of sects that go in for
that kind of thing? That was not the program. What is wanted is
a universal religion, modeled on the Synagogue, to go with
Marxist plans for a new world government of all men; and
hence the change of Christ’s words in the Mass from “for you
and for many” to ‘’for all men’’; so far dare they go in their
thievery and deception. The plan is to take over and transform
the Catholic religion. At Puebla John Paul 2 expressed it this
way: ‘’Jesus,’’ he said, ‘‘had a mission as servant of Yahweh,
which consists in complete salvation through a transforming,
peacemaking, pardoning, and reconciling love.’’ Universal
salvation through ecumenism is what the new reformers have
been teaching; transforming is what they have been doing, so
that very little remains of Catholic belief.
What is this ‘‘Yahweh, Yahweh, Yahweh” we keep hearing
these days? Christ on a “‘transforming, peacemaking mission
as servant of Yahweh’’? Do not these many peculiarities of
10
speech since the Council carry their own message? They do to
the brotherhood in the know, and to a few of us who are alive to
the twists and inversions and lying nuances of the followers of
Roncalli, Montini and Wojtyla. ‘People of God, evangelization,
liberation,
authentic,
dimensions,
guidelines,
charisma,
committed, involved, counterproductive, meaningful, reconciliation, confrontation, encounter, relevant, on-going,’ etc.
Why have all these and other strange words come into frequent
use since Vatican 2? ‘’To effect a confusion of ideas is an old
scheme of the devil,’’ wrote Dr. Felix Sarda y Salvany in a book
highly praised by the Holy See a hundred years ago. ‘’Not to
understand clearly and precisely is generally the source of
intellectual error. . .and it is as easy fo lay snares for the intellectually proud as for the innocent.”’
Liars and thieves! Vatican 2 liars and thieves! Progressive
and Traditionalist liars and thieves! ‘’There will be those who
will love His older Church,’’ wrote Theosophist Bishop Leadbeater, ‘‘them also | must bring,’’ he almost added. He certainly made provision for them, as I’ve mentioned in other
writings.
Much has been written about the crooked Vatican 2 popes
with their crooked cross; and the dirty work of the bishops has
not gone unnoticed by a few Catholic writers. Yet it has been the
local parish priest and new clergy of the hundred new bureaus
and the so-called Catholic press who have actually pulled the
wool over the eyes of the generality of Catholic laity. While at
first inclined to pity these men, because of the trap of gradual
change which was prepared for them, | cannot any longer do so,
the whole anti-Catholic show now being self-evident to those
. who do not refuse fo see.
The new and reformed clergy have shown arrogance and
contempt for those who have dared to approach them with the
truths they once swore to defend as priests all their days. Today
they receive part of the reward of their own downgrading of the
Catholic religion, being increasingly held in contempt, even
derision, where once they were respected. This surely is the
meaning of the new anti-Catholicism uncovered by one of the
national poll takers, and which certain Catholic publishers have
been complaining about. In the muddle of insane ecumenism
the priesthood becomes of no significance. Christ never did
promise popularity or salvation from watering down the truths
He had given us, but only the sword. Until Vatican 2 the Catholic
clergy and religious were respected, and so not many of our
17
enemies dared openly attack the Catholic clergy or their
people. Now the lowest of the modern rabble feel free to do so.
So it has been from the time of John 23’s opening to the world.
| should perhaps mention here what is surely the most
morally corrupting doctrine, that of ‘situation ethics’’. It can
be found in nearly all the new catechisms. Here | shall cite the
most open and devastatingly immoral of the actions it has
brought forth, starting with Paul 6’s ‘‘Humanae Vitae’’. Paul 6
had raised the question about possible moral licitness of contraceptive practices -- that which is of the natural law, and
which had been affirmed as Catholic doctrine by Paul’s recent
predecessors. The first result of this questioning by Paul 6 was
to raise doubts, not only about the matter itself but also about
the certainty of Catholic doctrine in general; and so, many
Catholics took up the practice of artificial birth prevention.
When Paul 6 spoke at last, he could not do otherwise than at
least ostensibly affirm what had been the Church’s constant
teaching, which all were aware of. The way Paul 6 and the
bishops got around Catholic doctrine, the natural law, was by
way of disagreements from the national councils of the bishops
with ‘‘Humanae Vitae’’, which disagreements Paul 6 accepted
as satisfactory. The encyclical ‘‘Humanae Vitae” satisfied the
conservatives, who cited if endlessly, but in practice it was
ignored.
And so not long after this monumental piece of hypocrisy was
acted out, | heard on a national television show Bishop Sheen
who, cornered by the conductor of the show, David Frost, said
“Yes, that is what Pope Paul meant,’’ meaning that contraception may be practiced in ‘hardship cases’’. A newly
married young woman of this Portland archdiocese went first
to one priest in the confessional, who told her it would be permissible to use contraceptive devices or pill. Not satisfied with
this advice, she went to two others and got the same assurance.
An older priest, an admirer of Archibishop Dwyer and one
obedient to him, volunteered the same advice to a young woman
who had made no hardship complaint at all, and who has born
four beautiful and very healthy children since. The next step in
this kind of situation or ‘‘hardship”’ ethics is open abortion,
which since Vatican 2 has grown from a generally despised
criminal operation to a murderous big business. Thus again is
Satan proved both a liar and murderer from the beginning. All
evil begins with the lie, usually accompanied by self-deception,
as in the Garden of Paradise.
12
Am | saying that the sudden spread of open abortion was a
consequence of the permissiveness of ‘’Humanae Vitae’’? | am.
No sooner had this encyclical been given widespread public
notice than representatives of the U.S. federal government
scurried to Rome, and State legislators began doing away with
old laws against criminal abortion. It is not always true that an
effect which follows close on a given action is the result of that
action. But the significance of patterns, sequences, forced innovations, the need for endless explaining, study clubs, clerical
bullying, to say nothing of the group-dynamics of the New
resulting
and the
or protestant,
marxist
idiotic,
Order,
irritation and falling away, have been disregarded beyond all
reason. The general upsurge of diabolism since Vatican 2 is the
most evident of results. Christ had put it simply: “By their
fruits you shall Know them.”’
It is not only in the non-Catholic world in general that immorality and crime have increased enormously since the
Council, but also among Catholics; and this despite the promise
of a Great Renewal which, it was said, was sure to come
because the Holy Spirit inspired the Council.
You Vatican 2 bishops, older pastors, publishers and editors
and hired writers of the big and little so-called Catholic papers
and magazines, what do you say happened to the promised
Great Renewal? What answer do you give to this question?
Please, no Paul 6 ‘’smoke of Satan’’ nonsense. | suggest that you
consider it as quite likely that John 23 with his key opened the
bottomless pit, as St. John foretold in his Apocalypse. Whether
you believe this or not, that explanation fits. If explains as does
none other that | have heard from any source.
The reformed clergy do not openly attack the few of us who
speak plainly of their total fraud, including the fake popes. Why
not? Because they can count on the pious ‘Traditionalists’ to
confuse the whole issue. Then, too, what can they say in defense
of a New Beginning of the Catholic Church.
Truth
and
the
Traditionalists
| use ‘Traditionalists’ here as | have used it in the past,
meaning to apply it to those organized groups who call themselves that. It all sounds so straightforward: the destroyers
over here, on this side of the line, the opponents of destruction
on the other side. But when a man steps forward to expose and
oppose Vatican 2 destructive reforms, if he has a modest fund of
knowledge and some Catholic common sense, he will suddenly
13
become aware that lined up with him are Seven grinning
Devils, who say: ‘‘We are with you in this; give them hell.’’
They Know that nine times out of ten these doughty would-be
defenders of the Faith will only add to the confusion and fall into
one of a hundred possible traps, mostly personal deficiencies.
The underground has been waiting for years -- Jansenists,
occultists, masonic knights, gnostics of the right, con men, cash
a_e few
even
‘monasteries’,
and
chapels
of
operators
Traditionalist ‘popes’, joined by the Pollyanna moderates.
The three or so big national Catholic papers with conservative pretensions are totally with the Vatican 2 popes and
their reform. The majority of the ‘Traditionalists’ read a few
little papers in which, in tune with their publishers, they constantly complain about the bishops and ‘abuses’
while expressing their loyalty to ‘‘our Holy Father’’. But not one of the
Vatican 2 “‘Holy Fathers’’ has put down a single one of the
bishops the Traditionalists complain of, nor have they taken
any
action
against
abuses
or
heretic
theologians.
The
Traditionalists thus carry on the Big and Necessary lie of
Vatican 2, by directing suspicion away from the men chiefly
responsible for the current destruction of the Church.
A sample of this Traditionalist mentality appears in the 15
April 1979 issue of the little paper called ‘““The Remnant’.
Presumably those who subscribe to this paper are of the
Biblical remnant, as of course the publisher must surely be.
Complaining of crude words of a bishop toward John Paul 2
(who has shown much crudity himself), a letter writer says
this: ‘’| flush with embarrassment for the bishop, Thomas C.
Kelly, and apologize to our Pope -- who has captured the hearts
of the LAITY the world over.”’ This from a ‘Traditionalist’,
after fifteen years of the reforming popes; and ina paper whose
publisher is standing off ina little ‘elect’ group. If these people
are so loyal to the Vatican 2 popes, it is certainly time they got
with their program. Their present position is one of revolt.
Another sample of the untruthful mentality prevalent among
the pollyanna Traditionalists, is that of their adored French
bishop who operates from Switzerland. Here is what this bishop
wrote in his Letter No. 9 to Friends and Benefactors, page 10:
‘‘We are the keenest defenders of his authority (that of Paul 6)
as Peter’s successor, but our attitude is governed by the words
of Pius |X... We applaud the Pope when he echoes Tradition
and is faithful to his mission of handing down the deposit of the
Faith. We accept novelties intimately in conformity with
Tradition and the Faith. We do not feel bound by any obedience
to novelties going against Tradition and threatening our Faith.
14
In that case, we take up a position behind the papal documents
listed above.’’
So then, this is what the papal office is reduced to in the minds
of the Traditionalist bishop and his followers. We are to stand
up and applaud when the pope says something which is or
seems to be in accord with Catholic tradition, otherwise we
‘take up a position’’ -- whatever that might mean -- behind
certain papal documents. And he has the nerve to attribute this
fatuity to Pope Pius |X. Pilate in saying ‘‘What is truth?” at
least spoke like a man.
The reformers gladly accept this taking up of a position. It
can do them no harm and even fits into their scheme of
ecumenical dialogue. The main requirement of any revolution,
Bolshevik or Vatican 2, is that the top leaders themselves must
not be effectively attacked. Criticism up to a point, yes, but
always loyalty to the regime. The gulags may be pronounced
bad, but socialism must be held as good. There are abuses of
late years in the Church, true, but one must not speak plainly of
the Vatican 2 popes as in any way responsible. Now it must not
be said what Catholics always believed, that the popes have
been strictly charged by Christ Himself to govern and teach; to
make no compromises with lying teachers.
Ambiguity, as already mentioned, is another well known
mark and method of the reformers, especially of the Vatican 2
popes Roncalli, Montini and Wojtyla. | was not surprised to
read reports of conservatives, ‘Traditionalists’, the diocesan
editors, of course, and the gun-toting
revolutionist-priest
Torres, all acclaiming John Paul 2 at Puebla as their own. The
Pollyanna Traditionalist press in the U.S. is perhaps a bit
embarrassed by their hero -- and what are they going to do
now? | suggest that they go on pretty much as they have thus
far, continuing to close their eyes. John Paul 2 will not entirely
disappoint them, but will put on a show sufficiently orthodox for
those who do not look at it too closely.
Applying ‘’Traditionalist’’ in a broader sense, to include a
large number who are in a general way disturbed by ‘‘the
changes”, there exists a circle of wild unreality within which
various ‘seers’ hold sway. In this wild region of the ‘children’ of
Garabandal, ‘’Porta Vox’’!, Clemente, Mama Rosa, Veronica,
Peter Beter (an odd, late non-Catholic entry from Texas), anda
dozen others, one is to believe that Paul 6 was a prisoner, or that
he had been impersonated by another as proved by photos of an
15
ear; that he was murdered because he refused to declare the
Latin Mass illegal! -- he who had promoted this New Ordo as
Archbishop of Milan. John Paul | was shot in the head, so they
say, and lived two weeks afterward. It was not his corpse they
displayed at the Vatican. (Indications of what could have been
poisoning give some encouragement to these fantasies.) John
Paul Il, it is said, was murdered right off. It is an actorimpersonator who has taken his place. To one widely advertised
woman ‘seer’ the ‘Mother of God’ speaks gabby nonsense in
very bad grammar. The Garabandal ‘’warning’”’, then the
‘punishment’ have been threatening for years. Something
extraordinary was to have happened in 1972 -- Mother Godinho
Said so -- but it didn’t. Veronica had a great comet striking the
earth a few years ago; but it didn’t. According to the Boston
PILOT, full-page ads for the Bayside show have lately been
appearing in half a dozen large-city daily papers, paid for by
Veronica’s followers. Such ads cost upward of $3,000 per page,
which will give the reader some idea of how much this kind of
madness has taken hold.
| know from observing closely the Vatican 2 show and from
correspondence and circulars received here, that once a person
falls into the habit of looking for the latest and most spectacular
message from heaven, from Veronica, Clemente, Peter Beter,
etc., that the ordinary ways of divine providence become dull
fare, and so are rejected. Within the circle | am writing of, it is
the fantastic which is the ordinary common language of the
initiates. There’s no use talking reality to these people. But for
those who might be hovering along the line of this circle | shall
write here a few facts and Spiritual principles, condensed from
the writings of the greatest of the mystical doctors of the
Church, St. John of the Cross. The true mystic, by the way, is
before all a total realist of the spiritual life; yet an expert on
what relates to spiritual conditions lying beyond natural mental
activity. From this doctor of the Church, then, the following
basic teachings:
(1)
One
must not violate the limits God
has set, by seeking
knowledge in extraordinary ways, because natural reason and
the law and doctrine of the Gospel are, since the time of Christ,
sufficient for every necessity. (2) The devil is most pleased
when he sees that a man desires revelations; for then he has an
excellent opportunity to inject errors and disparage the Faith.
Such a man becomes coarse in his faith and exposes himself to
many temptations. (Observation shows that women are far
more prone than men to this kind of diabolism.) (3) It is quite
impossible for even persons well-trained in spiritual matters to
16
discern the falseness of visions which come from the devil, so
much of a master of deceit is he. (4) God is rightly angered by
those who admit these things, for He sees the rashness of exposing oneself to the danger of presumption, curiosity, and
pride. (5) It is not possible to overestimate the devil’s craftiness
in inserting lies. (6) On judgement day many will plead: “‘Lord,
Lord, did we not speak prophecies in Thy name? And God will
answer: ‘‘Depart from Me, workers of iniquity, for | have never
known you.”’ (Those who listen to and give support to the fake
seers will also, we may be sure, come in some degree, perhaps
(7) To deceive and inentirely, under this condemnation.)
troduce lies, the devil first lures a person with truths that give
assurance; and then he proceeds with his beguilement. The
pure, Cautious, simple and humble soul should resist and reject
revelations and visions with as much effort and care as it would
extremely dangerous temptations.
The foregoing is only a trifle from the writings of this master
of the spiritual life, whose teachings provide a basis for those
Church laws which forbid us to have anything to do with alleged
apparitions, those not approved by the Church. Even with
approved visions it is possible to be deceived; to stray far from
the truth through excessive zeal and the desire to see
prophecies fulfilled, especially in the manner we might think
they ought to be fulfilled.
| think of another diabolical possibility. The devil can, at
times, ‘answer’ our prayers. Beginning with an example would
seem to be the best means to start to explain this. | recently
heard of a group of women who “‘after much prayer and
research’’ became convinced that one should seek out and
- attend any certainly valid Mass. Quite surely the prayer of
these ladies was ‘answered’ according to their wishes in the
matter. However that may be in this case, St. John of the Cross
writes that ‘’since a person can be guided sufficiently by
natural reason and the law and doctrine of the Gospel. . .there
is no necessity unsolvable or irremediable by these means.”’ If
we undertake something beyond our capacity, especially if we
have an inner, even though seemingly suppressed preference
for a certain result, the devil is thereby given an opening to our
minds -- can ‘answer’ our prayers. As St. John teaches,
‘’God
permits the devil to blind and delude many, who merit this by
their sins and audacities.’” Prudence and obedience, then,
should guide our actions in all matters, but especially those
pertaining to faith and morals; otherwise we open ourselves to
diabolic deceits.
17
With regard to my own writings on the latter days, these were
not undertaken to satisfy curiosity, or with a desire for any
particular results, but to explain how Christ remains with us
despite the present chaos in the Church. Also to warn, using
natural prediction, of deceits to follow those we have already
experienced. In no way do | rely on any supposed seer but see
the entire current crop of them as manifest fakes who have
added endlessly to the confusion about the present state of the
Papacy; which confusion is the devil’s own work, the necessary
Big Lie, as | have said.
The current craze for seers, charisma and post-Vatican 2
‘pentecostalism’, and the widespread return of the occult, of
which San Francisco and Jonestown are examples, are part of
the same diabolic pattern, surely a consequence (once more
quoting St. John’s Apocalypse) of the devil ‘loosed for a time’”’.
It is a serious mistake to treat these things as other than what
they are; to suppose oneself to be charitable in attributing good
intentions to these pretended seers. The same principle should
be applied in judging the whole Vatican 2 fraud, which is of the
devil.
One last word on the ‘Traditionalists’. What St. John writes
about the difficulty of discerning the truth about alleged visions
and visionaries, ought to be heeded by those who, with but little
knowledge, think they can discern the true and good among the
multitude of ‘Traditionalist’ leaders offering substitutes for
parish church, bishop and pope.
The
Final
Vatican
2 Deception
In June 1976, | wrote the following: “’In my Letter No. Eleven
| predicted that after Montini a true pope will be elected by a
very small minority of true Catholic electors. This follows from
the doctrinal logic of only one Antichrist. | said that the
majority will elect an Antipope. This man, it seems to me, will
be a ‘conservative’, an attractive personality who will restore
‘some Latin’ to the liturgy, etc., as Paul 6 has promised occasionally, and which | have seen mentioned in the so-called
to me also that nearly all the
It seems
Catholic press.
‘moderates’, or ‘integrists’, will accept the Antipope as true
pope; possibly also the Abbe de Nantes. Thus will ‘unity’ be
achieved among baptized Catholics, and all will be made ready
for the final move into the World Synagogue for all men.”
Was this a correct
essential prediction
forecast? Basically it was. My main or
was that, following the quite openly
18
destructive ‘progressive’ Paul 6, the logical move of the reform
party would be to elect an attractive ‘conservative’ to calm
those who are dissatisfied with the Vatican 2 reforms, and thus
bring in as many Catholics as possible. This the majority of
cardinals did, by electing the well-liked and smiling Luciani,
who took the name John Paul |. I’m sure it will be generally
agreed that no more “attractive personality’’, as | had put if,
could have been found among the cardinals. And Luciani was
conservative for a bishop who had gone so far astray as to have
accepted the New Order, which I’m sure he had persuaded
himself (with lots of help from outside) as legitimate. There are
those who think the background evil powers had decided they
overdid it, and that this had something to do with the quick
removal of John Paul, who was found in his bathroom clutching
a sheaf of papers, his face horribly contorted. I’m inclined to
believe that there was no malice in Luciani who, when he saw
the full extent of what was expected of him as pope, balked at
the job. | was mistaken in thinking -- perhaps wishful thinking -that a small majority of the cardinals might elect a true pope,
as happened in the 12th century when the Jew Pierleone occupied the papal chair as Antipope. Knowing Pierleone as the
sSimonist, etc. that he was, a minority of the cardinals had
who took the
elected, the night before, Cardinal Papareschi
name Innocent Il, which name and not that of Anacletus II
(Pierleone)
appears
in the official
list of the Popes.
As already mentioned, in my Letter No. 12 | wrote of the
‘‘doctrinal logic of only one Antichrist’ (surely the one who
would overturn the whole Church), Paul 6, which is according to
the prophecies of St. John and St. Paul. And it so happened that,
aside from the fact of the main job having been done by Montini, both Luciani and Wojtyla declared themselves ecumenists,
committed to the destructive Vatican 2 reform, thus clearly
indicating their lack of intention to act as true popes. For the
Pope is head of the Catholic Church, not of a gnostic collection
of men of all religions and of no religion at all -- the vague
religion of ‘‘Humanity’’. So if my prediction of an Antipope was
not correct, it was incorrect only in a technical sense, the
majority having elected men who did not intend, as | have said,
to act as true popes, but as false conservatives and ecumenists.
In support of this opinion, both men rejected the customary
ceremony of coronation, certainly a most symbolic rejection.
To add to the confusion, just after | had written my June 1976
prediction of an attractive conservative to appear, that same
June Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre came into prominence with
his ordinations at Econe. Here, then, | thought, is my attractive
19
fake conservative, who, while speaking pious orthodoxies,
openly defies Paul 6 while professing his loyalty to him. Of
course | can see now that the Lefebvre thing is only a side action, a confusion factor, a cash operation
by a small gnostic
faction of the ‘right’. Lefebvre has from the beginning begged
Paul 6, then the John Pauls, for a place in the Reformed and
Ecumenic counterchurch.
| say, then, that the main part of my forecast is being verified
as correct, first by the election of John Paul |, now by the
outward show of Catholic regularity by the bustling John Paul
2. What follows here is from ‘‘Our Sunday Visitor’’, 22 April
1979: ‘Tighter Ship is Pope’s Goal’’.. . ‘‘John Paul 2 declares
his intention to ‘put the Church’s house in order’... .“’ But in
doing so, the Vatican City report says, he will ‘’follow the course
set by the Council’’. This is an obvious contradiction, since the
house became disordered, as everyone knows, as a result of the
Council and its overturning of Catholic doctrine and customs;
the New Beginning John Paul 2 has repeatedly affirmed in his
major talks and first encyclical.
‘‘We need priests who construct rather than destroy when
teaching faith and morals,’’ the ‘Sunday Visitor’’ report goes
on to say. Sounds good. All are for faith and morals. But where
is John Paul going to get these priests? From the nearly empty
(thank heaven!)
New-Think
seminaries?
The ‘‘silly season
is
over,’’ says OSV. But how did the silly season come about?
There had never been a silly season before Vatican 2. According
to OSV, there was only one dispensation from the priesthood in
the first six months since John Paul 2 was elected. Of course one
doesn’t want to be pope with no bishops or lower clergy around.
And it is common knowledge that permissive, ‘liberation’minded Vatican 2 will resort on occasion to pressing the old
Catholic obedience. It has done this right along with those who
have pleaded for the Latin Mass, either as required by tradition
or the Articles of Vatican 2. The refusal to grant ‘dispensations’
is not likely to slow down the priestly exodus. Fr. Pedro Arrupe
is reported as saying that 130 Jesuits are leaving each year.
Surely some of these priests are leaving because they intend to
remain Catholics, not ecumenist ministers. Anyway, as | had
predicted, following Paul 6 there would be this show of a return
to Catholic discipline and doctrine. It is a superficial show bya
not very good actor, but it will take in perhaps most of those
who have been resisting “‘the changes”.
The OSV article quoted contains a hint that John Paul will
condemn the writings of some of the more notorious heretics.
20
This and his show of devotion to the Mother of God will deceive
most of the ‘conservatives’ and ‘Traditionalists’. These people,
grown tired and more confused by a succession of ‘popes’
upholding Vatican 2, will now eagerly follow, because of an
outward show of Catholic regularity, one who yet upholds the
reforms they have opposed these past ten years, more or less.
| call attention now fo the last sentence in my paragraph of
prediction in Letter No. 12: ““Thus will unity be achieved among
baptized Catholics, and all will be made ready for the final
move into the One World synagogue for all men.” “’Synagogue’’
need not be taken here in the precise Jewish sense, although the
Signs are numerous that it should be. In many “‘Letters’’ and
other writings, | and others have commented on these signs.
The latest at hand is from a reader in London who sends a page
from the ‘‘Jewish Chronicle’, 6 April 1979, from which the
following extracts, beginning with the heading:
‘‘Pope’s Warm Message to the Jewish People. On Monday,
March 12, Pope John II received in audience a delegation of
Jewish leaders. . . major Jewish communities from Europe and
Latin America were included, along with Americans and
Israelis.”
Concerning John Paul’s ‘‘formal address”, it was ‘’delivered
from a papal throne, and immediately published in full in the
Vatican’s newspaper, ‘Osservatore Romano’ .. .’’ The Pope’s
talk ‘brought profound satisfaction not only to Jewish activists
in the field of relations with the Church, but also to their
Catholic colleagues, whose work this pope formally blessed. . .
In
1965,
the
Second
Vatican
Council
promulgated
its
declaration: ‘Nostra Aetate’, on ‘the relationship of the Church
to non-Christian religions’. . . But until now, this document has
‘had the status of advice and guidance only. The paramount
importance of the Pope’s new address was his adoption of the
‘guidelines’. Said the Pontiff, ‘Antisemitism and discrimination
are opposed
to the very
spirit
of Christianity...
The
Guidelines. . .whose value | wish to underline and reaffirm,
emphasizes that Christians must strive to acquire a better
knowledge of the basic components of the religious tradition of
Judaism. .. to learn by what essential traits the Jews define
themselves. . .
‘So the Pope, and hence his Church, have now adopted as
their official policy what had previously been advice.”’ (‘‘His
church” is an obnoxious phrase | have been hearing since the
time of John 23. It comes from smugly patronizing enemies, or
21
as a Stylistic device of their hired journalists,
the Catholic Church to a human level, a low
other hand, each of the Vatican 2 popes, but
and Wojtyla, give the impression that the
him, that it is his to change in every way
who would reduce
one at that. On the
especially Montini
Church belongs to
he wishes.)
These visitors to John Paul 2 were not Jews of Catholic
sympathies, happy to visit a Catholic Pope. The truth is contrary to such a notion. They came to visit Phenomenologist
Wojtyla, who urges on Catholics the study of Judaism and attendance at Jewish synagogues, etc., in accordance with
‘‘Nostra Aetate’’ of Vatican 2. Attempts at conversions to the
Catholic Faith, in accordance with Christ’s command to ’’Go
preach the Gospel to all nations’’ ended in the time of pope
Montini; and in any case are effectively ended by Vatican 2
Gnostic ecumenism. Who is yielding to whom is made clear
beyond any possibility of misunderstanding by the following
from John Paul 2, just quoted, but which deserves repeating:
‘*. . .Christians must strive to acquire a better knowledge of the
basic components of the religious tradition of Judaism... to
learn by what essential traits the Jews define themselves’’. . .
This sentence reveals the true face of Vatican 2 ecumenism, the
Spirit of Vatican 2.
This talk to Jews gathered from most parts of the world,
given as a ‘’formal address’’, ‘‘delivered from a papal throne”,
as the Jews reported it, was certainly meant to carry a symbolic meaning and message to world Jewry. Catholics who yet
retain their sanity will know how little this Jewish Assembly at
the Vatican means in terms of Catholic doctrine. There’s not
much comfort in that, however, as the Final Great Betrayal
goes on unopposed. It is Satan’s hour, the hour of darkness
(more on this in Appendix, ‘“The Holy Year and The Jews”’).
The ‘‘Jewish Chronicle’ writer ends with these lines: “‘The
audience began with the word ‘’Shalom”’ pronounced by the
president of the World Jewish Congress: it ended with the
following from the Pope: ‘As a sign of the understanding and
fraternal love already achieved, let me express again my
cordial welcome greetings to you all, with that word so rich in
we
which
language,
Hebrew
the
from
taken
meaning,
Christians also use in our liturgy: Peace be with you. Shalom,
shalom!’
Try to imagine John Paul making such arrangements in
advance, and so cordially welcoming a delegation of Catholics
who find the Vatican 2 New Beginning disturbing to their
22
consciences. With regard to ‘‘antisemitism and discrimination’
which come so indiscriminately from the lips of John Paul, this
is perhaps the biggest lie of all. For it is anti-Christianism
which has been at work in the world at large this past century or
more, and which was brought into the Church -- that is, was
spread among Christians themselves -- before, but vastly more
since Vatican 2. In the lower corner of the page quoted from, is
an article headed ‘’Archbishop Sets Up Inter-faith Committee’,
from a Rubin Szklowin, Buenos Aires.
As already mentioned, one need not read my prediction of a
One World synagogue in its exact literal sense. Unquestionably,
however, since Vatican 2, something has been afoot between an
international set of Jews and Zionists, the Johns and Pauls, the
Vatican 2 bishops and lower Catholic clergy. Exactly what they
have in mind is not my particular concern here. What | think
Should be pointed out, however, with regard to the above
reported meeting, is that modern Jews do not follow the true
Hebrewism of the Old Testament, but the Babylonian Talmud
of the 8th century, which is on the Church’s Index of Forbidden
Books.
The modern Jew is inclined toward atheism, favors Socialism
and Communism, forms of worldwide revolution against all
that remains of a once-Christian Order. He would bring about
that World Order which he believes God has destined for him as
a member of the ‘’Chosen People’’. As always, he rejects Christ
and His Kingdom of God, demanding his own kingdom of this
world. Judeo-Christian talk is so much nonsense, as nearly all
Jews will not only admit but be quick, in private, to assert. The
Jews do not intend to give up one iota of their Jewishness. So
what are they cooking up with the Johns and Pauls?
As mentioned near the beginning of this booklet, in his Puebla
speech John Paul 2 said that ‘‘Christ had a mission as the
servant of Yahweh.” In his first encyclical he promised “‘a
church quite unknown previously’’. Since we have had such a
‘church’ (a counterchurch within which Pius X had warned
against in 1907) since Vatican 2, we can give John Paul credit
for having spoken some truth at Puebla, and in his first encyclical. Here is the full passage | refer to:
Entrusting myself fully to the Spirit of truth, therefore, | am
entering into the rich inheritance of recent pontificates. This
inheritance has struck deep roots in the awareness of the
Church in an utterly new way, quite unknown previously,
thanks to the Second Vatican Council, which John XXII!
23
convened and opened and which was later successfully
concluded and perseveringly put into effect by Paul VI,
whose activity | was myself able to watch from close at
hand.
End
of quotation.
‘The Spirit of truth indeed! From the time of John 23rd’s
‘inspiration’ to call a Council, the reformers have appealed
incessantly to this ‘Spirit’ of theirs. True popes govern and
teach on the basis of Holy Scripture and Catholic Tradition;
that is their solemn obligation.
True popes do not announce New Pentecosts, the Church’s
awareness ‘in an utterly new way’’. True popes do not approve
any
kind
of ‘‘shared
investigation
of: the
ftruth’’
with
Protestants, Jews and pagans, but speak as they must from the
deposit of Faith as it has come down from the Apostles.
My prediction, then, was no prediction at all, for the abandonment of the Faith in the name of ‘the Spirit’ had been going
on since at least the start of the Council. All that remains now
for Wojtyla, the third person of the unholy trinity of Vatican 2
popes, to do, is to carry out the final phase of transformation of
the Catholic Church. In this “he stands not in the truth’ but
carrieson as
Satan intends that operation of error which Sf.
Paul predicted would only shortly precede the End.
For more reading on this last point and some others, | suggest
as a Start my Letters 26 (The Work of Hell is Spiritual), 29 (The
New Order), 30 (The Religion of Antichrist), 32 (The First and
the Last Revolt), 35 (Pope Wojtyla), and 36 (Building the
Ecumenical Church); all six $5, mailed first class. Please send
$1 extra for overseas air mailing. Write to: W. F. Strojie, 41695
Clark-Smith Dr., Lebanon, OR 97335.
Copies
of this booklet:
$2 single copy;
$7 for five copies.
Please notice: the cost of printing and mailing this booklet will
be considerably more than for my regular Letters; so | would
appreciate some extra financial help on this item.
24
About the author: Born in 1912, a lifelong Catholic, he belongs to
no organization and recommends none. He has withdrawn from
the parish, from the time the priests began reciting a narrative
Canon and mutilated words of Institution.
Appendix
A:
Original
THE
paper
dated
11
Feb.
1975.
HOLY YEAR AND THE JEWS
W. F. Strojie
THE
HOLY
YEAR
-- What is it all about? What is the
Significance of Pope Paul’s Holy Year and the talk about
reconciliation? The 20 June 1974 English edition of the Osservatore Romano, Vatican newspaper, contains a full page
spread by Rabbi Marc Tanenbaum explaining the significance
of this Holy Year. Other signs of the times: Cardinal Bea visits
New York (early during the Council) to confer with rich New
York Jews, then later receives a gold medal from them. The
Jews influence changes in what had been the Catholic Liturgy.
Pope Paul occasionally displays a jewel worn by the Jewish
high priests. Catholic churches are stripped of images -- images
are offensive to Jews. The new “‘liturgy’’ may now be performed on Saturday. Bishops and priests take part in services
of the Synagogue.
The following is from the Commission for Religious Relations
with the Jews: Guidelines and Suggestions for Implementing
the Conciliar Declaration ‘’Nostra Aetate,’’ parts of which |
give here with a few comments. The date of this document,
‘“Given at Rome, 1 December 1974.’’ It is undoubtedly the official word on Reconciliation, as follows:
The
Declaration
Nostra
Aetate,
issued
by
the
Second
Vatican Council on 28 October 1965, ‘on the relationship of
the Church to non-Catholic religions’, marks an important
milestone in the history of Jewish-Christian
relations.
Moreover, the step taken by the Council finds its historical
setting in circumstances deeply affected by the memory of
the persecution and massacre of Jews which took place just
before and during the Second World War.
25
So says the Commission. The massacre of Christians before,
during
and since the War does not appear to matter. The socalled
massacre of the Jews has been enormously exaggerated.
...the spiritual bonds and historical links binding the
Church to Judaism condemn (as opposed to the very spirit of
Christianity)
all
forms __ of
anti-semitism
and
discrimination. .. Christians
must
therefore
strive to
acquire a better knowledge of the basic components of the
religious tradition of Judaism; they must strive to learn by
what essential traits the Jews define themselves in the lights
of their own religious experience.
What is this great concern of the Vatican about Jewish
religious tradition at a time when Catholic traditions are being
systematically rejected? Why are Catholics being urged to
study Judaism at a time of increasing confusion among
Catholics about Catholic doctrine? More from the Commission:
In addition to friendly talks, competent people will be encouraged to meet and study together the many problems
deriving from the fundamental convictions of Judaism and
Christianity. In order not to hurt (even involuntarily) those
taking part, it will be vital to guarantee, not only tact, but a
great openness of spirit and diffidence with respect to one’s
own prejudices.
Prejudices? Diffidence! And who are these “‘competent
people’’ the Commission members have in mind? What is this
‘‘great openness of spirit’’ we are being urged to exercise?
What is this ‘“common meeting in prayer and meditation’”’ the
Commission advises in their next paragraph, and which is
contrary to Catholic moral teaching against religious indifferentism?
The existing links between the Christian liturgy and the
Jewish liturgy will be borne in mind. The idea of a living
community in the service of God, and in the service of men
for the love of God, such as it is realized in the liturgy, is just
that characteristic of the Jewish liturgy as it is of the
Christian one. To improve Jewish-Christian relations, it is
important to take cognizance of liturgical life (formulas,
feasts, rites, etc.) in which the Bible holds an essential
place.
In other
Comments
let us continue to Judaize
words,
later on this ‘’Bible-in-common’’.
Catholicism.
26
When commenting on biblical texts, emphasis will be laid on
the continuity of our faith with that of the earlier Covenant,
in the perspective of the promises. We believe that those
promises were fulfilled with the first coming of Christ. But it
is none the less true that we still await their perfect
fulfillment in his glorious return at the end of time.
This is plain heresy. | have reliable information from Rome
that this ‘‘real coming,’’ according to the Jews, is being taught
to students for the priesthood at the Gregorian University in
Rome.
With regard to the trial and death of Jesus,
recalled that “‘what happened in his passion
blamed upon all the Jews then living, without
nor upon the Jews of today,”’ (Nostra Aetate,
second Vatican Council has pointed out the path
promoting deep fellowship between Jews and
But there is still a long road ahead.
the Council
cannot be
distinction,
4)... The
to follow in
Christians.
Yes, this document is only a first step. It is signed by Cardinal
Willebrands and ends with the information that it was Pope
Paul VI who instituted the Commission for Religious Relations
with the Jews, 22 October 1974.
The Commission states or at least implies three current
notions concerning the Jews:
(1) modern Jews are Old
Testament people, thus sharing a continuity with Catholics; (2)
Jews are a generally persecuted people, simply as Jews; (3)
Jews were not in any way responsible for the death of Christ on
the Cross; the responsibility for that belongs solely to the
Roman Governor, Pontius Pilate. Having in mind, then, at least
the general impressions now being spread about on this subject,
the reader may wish to consider what follows. Concerning No. 1
a few excerpts from Fr. Hilarin Felder, O.M. Cap, his Christ
And The Critics, Vol. 1.
The Judaism
Messiah only
conduct and
the narrow
kingdom was
policy.
of the Synagogue could acknowledge as the
a thorough-going Rabbi, whose words, works,
interpretation of the truth adhered strictly to
Talmudic system of ordinances and whose
a world power with a purely Jewish provincial
The pharisaical and rabbinical theology developed after the
return from exile, reached its climax about the time of
Jesus, and was thereupon edited in the writings of the
2/7
Synagogue,
Talmud...
and
especially
in
the
literature
of
the
At the first glance it seems strange that the rabbinical
theology, and with it later Judaism, was not able to maintain
itself at the height of that notion of the Messiah, entertained
by the prophets... It laid, on the whole, little stress any
longer on the prophetic writings. In order to strengthen
practical Jewish life as opposed to influences of their
pagan environment, the Law -- that is, the 613 Torah commandments (for such was the number that the Scribes found
in the Pentateuch) -- became more and more exaggerated at
the expense of the real meaning of the prophetical Messianic
revelation. The Rabbis not only caused the religious private
life of the people to be entirely absorbed in devotion to the
Law, in comparison with which prayers and sacrifices were
much less important, and not only made the reading of the
Torah the central point of public worship and the whole
religious consciousness of the community, but according to
them, the books of the Law contain the whole of religion, and
the Torah is the revelation, in which God has included
everything that he in any way can reveal through all eternity. The Law existed even before the world, and, accordingly,
God
already
circumcised
Adam
before
he
breathed into him the breath of life, while the prophetical
and doctrinal books of Holy Scripture came only later and,
as it were, by chance.
Thus does Fr. Felder sum up Jewish theology at the time of
Christ. So what are the “‘existing links between the Christian
liturgy and Jewish liturgy’’ the Vatican Commission has in
mind? What are the ‘‘’common elements. . . in which the Bible
holds an essential place?’’ Have the Jews taken up the New
Testament? Is it perhaps that the rich New York Jews who gave
a gold medal
to Cardinal
Bea are now
leaning toward
Catholicism? If so, why are Catholics being urged to study
Judaism? Why did the Vatican announce about a year ago that
all attempts at conversion will cease? And why has Paul VI
‘‘outlawed’”’ the traditional Catholic liturgy? How does this fit in
with the ‘‘links’’ theory of the Commission?
| have quoted Fr. Felder on the rabbis and pharisees at the
time of Christ. What about the generality of the Jewish people?
What did they think of the Messiah? What hopes of theirs
reposed in his coming?
28
The Messiah was longed for by all classes because he was to
hasten and assure the advent of their national dominion
through the enforcement of the Law. And even Jehovah, who
was to assume the government of Israel, must for this
purpose place himself exclusively at the service of Jewish
aspirations. He must become (excuse the expression, since
it is absolutely correct) a thorough-going Jew of the Law,
must take upon himself in every way both Law and yoke,
and put himself, with his heavenly royal court, entirely
under the orders of the Jewish Sanhedrin.
As J. P.
Publicans’’
Israel. It is
child’s own
schoois, aS
Arendzen writes in his ‘‘Prophets, Priests and
(which | shall be quoting), it is the Rabbi who rules
the rabbi or teacher who takes precedence over the
father. This notion is being revived in modern
many parents well know. From Fr. Felder again:
Running parallel with the official Messianic notion of
rabbinical theology, and of the great mass of the Jewish
people was the eschatological and apocalyptic conception.
Modern writers on the subject are wont to call the
apocalyptic Messianic ideas eschatological because in them
everything is concentrated on the last things...
(but)
fundamentally the same piece is played, whether in one
place or another -- namely, that of putting Israel, in a strong
materialistic sense,
into a position of national
world
Supremacy.
I’m full of questions. The foregoing excerpt suggests one
more. From where do the political conservatives, who are
fuming about One World government, think this insane idea
comes from, and how account for its persistence, its international organization and the wealth behind it? Why are
their leaders silent about its source? -- this fact of the greatest
political significance.
Those agnostics or Protestants who have put out of their
minds the Catholic Church as the central fact of our civilization
are blind guides.
Electing
Mr.
Clean
to the American
Presidency may be better than electing Mr. Dirty. But it will
not remove the moral corruption and doctrinal confusion that
has put Mr. Dirty into a dominating position in the first place.
So, those who want to save the nation -- any nation -- had better
pay some attention to what is happening within that institution,
the Catholic Church, which has been the greatest bulwark
against the spread of modern moral, theological and political
23
confusion.
Political
leaders
may
talk
of
“‘religious
neutralization’’ and be pleased to see the present troubles
within the Catholic Church. But this attitude is in conflict with
their avowed intention of restoring sanity and stability to
western political
institutions.
In their antagonism
or _ indifference to the Catholic Church they are at one with the
Revolution -- the ages-old Revolution of Satan, the Prince of
This World.
Now a few paragraphs on item No. 2, the Jews as a persecuted people, from the Abbe Constant Fouard’s Saint Peter
and the First Years of Christianity.
Everywhere the Roman governors evidenced the greatest
care to consult the wishes of Judaism, so powerful did they
feel if to be! If but one of them attempted to meddle with
their property, or with the rights of some synagogue, the
Israelites of all lands, particularly those of the capital,
stirred
up their countrymen
to combine
against the
aggressor;
thereupon
followed
nothing
but
tumults,
deputations, suppliant letters, and apologies;
once the
agitation had become general, it was prolonged with an
obstinacy which overthrew all obstacles.
This from Abbe Fouard has a familiar sound. | have read
lately that during the first week of last November over 100,000
Jews came from a dozen cities to protest in front of the United
Nations
because
a delegate
of the Palestine
Liberation
Organization was scheduled to state his case before the U.N.
According to the account | read, publicity was given to the
Zionist-led demonstrations and the protests were reported in
the major media, radio, television and newspapers, not only in
the United States but throughout most of the world. To return to
Abbe Fouard:
Formidable
as
the
Jewish
influence
appeared
to
magistrates in the provinces, their power was no less
dreaded by the merchants of the cities where they did
business. In every branch of traffic the close union between
members of their race, and their connections, bringing them
into touch, commercially, with the whole world, gave them a
notable advantage over their rivals. As soon as they appeared in any place they first managed to get the small
tradesmen’s business into their hands; after that they would
begin quietly and by degrees to get control of the more
considerable
business
interests. . .
30
What the Abbe Fouard wrote about the business practices of
the Jews of two thousand years ago is surely applicable today.
Perhaps it won’t be out of place to quote him on how the Jews at
the time of Christ conducted their own “‘dialogues” -- a tradition
not entirely abandoned as shown by the foregoing item on
protests at the United Nations against the Arab speaker Yasser
Arafat.
The Jews discussed any mooted point in their traditions with
all their customary passions, -- with a babel of words, cries,
threatening gestures and dust thrown in the air. Sometimes
the excitement would degenerate into such acts of violence
that the Praetor would be obliged to intervene; generally,
however, a majority of Jews would mass together, and by
main force oblige the weaker party to give in to their
opinion. This fashion of persuading their opponents was well
known. Horace alludes to it laughingly in his invective
against the man who is a foe of satire. . .
So wrote Abbe Constant Fouard about 1892, as part of
background information in his study of St. Peter and the first
days of Christianity. This is not an anti-semitic book. Nor is Fr.
Hilarin’ Felder’s ‘’Christ and the Critics.’’ These volumes and
the one by Arendzen just happen to be three | have at hand
which contain information on the time of Christ.
Now to item No. 3, the currently propagated falsehood that
Jews were in no way responsible for the sentence of death
against our Lord Jesus Christ. Let me first forestall the possible
objection that the Vatican Commission Declaration does not
say explicitly that the Jews have always been persecuted, or
that the Roman governor was solely responsible for Christ’s
death. Vatican || documents are noted for their ambiguities
and vagaries. They are but the first steps taken in the Spirit of
Vatican Il. The evidence of this is abundant and we shall see
much more of it throughout this ‘‘Holy Year.”
The main facts of the trial of Christ before Pilate were known
to all Christians, and have never varied in Catholic doctrinal
teachings. Pilate’s ‘’| find no fault in this man,” his five attempts to turn the Jews from their demand that he condemn
Christ to death, have been generally known from the Bible. The
Bible account is supported by the writings of historians of the
time, both Jewish and Roman.
From these sources J.P.
Arendzen in his ‘‘Prophets, Priests and Publicans’’ gives a
wealth of technical detail concerning the procedure of the
Sanhedrin in the case, and of the Jew’s own laws which they
violated to get Christ condemned as a common criminal.
31
The arrest was made at night by Jewish police acting under
instructions of the Sanhedrin, assisted by a cohort of Roman
military. It was the chief priests who paid Judas the thirty
pieces of silver. Christ was brought to the house of Caiaphas
(before that to Annas) because the Temple gates were locked at
night. ‘““The whole Council sought testimony against Jesus”’ illegal because Jewish law required that witnesses in favor had
to be heard before witnesses against the accused. According to
Mosaic law at least two witnesses had to give concordant
testimony; they failed in this. The Jews held court on Christ at
night, before the morning sacrifice, which was in violation of
the law. The Sanhedrin condemned Christ because He claimed
to be the Son of God -- true God. But the accusation they bring
before Pilate is that of sedition. Arendzen devotes four chapters
to the matter. | will give here only a summary section, beginning with the question of the morning session of the Sanhedrin:
Towards six o’clock in the morning --early says St. Matthew
and St. Mark, at daybreak says St. Luke -- Christ was again
brought into the Council-room.
What
was
the motive
of this second
sitting?
Some have maintained that the Jewish authorities intended
to legalize the verdict of the night sitting, which was invalid
because no sentence could be given except by daytime
according to the Mishna.
Possibly so, but then they would still have left the illegality
of the trial and execution being on the same day, and this
also was forbidden by the Mishna. According to Jewish
reckoning the day runs from sunset to sunset. They would
have introduced also a new illegality in dispensing with the
hearing of witnesses in the supposedly only legal meeting in
the morning
Some maintain that the morning sitting merely considered
the ways and means to obtain Pilate’s endorsement of the
sentence of the previous night. But for such a petition for his
sanction a meeting of the Sanhedrin was unnecessary. As
Roman and Gentile, Pilate obviously could not enquire into
a question of Jewish religious law. The permission to carry
out the sentence for blasphemy, i.e., permission to stone the
culprit, condemned in a legal sitting of the Sanhedrin, was a
mere formal affair. Pilate could have no reason to refuse if.
As a matter of fact, Pilate gave it at once, but the Jews
would not have if.
32
Finally, some maintain that the
took place at night, and the legal
morning, but there seem to have
and the official sentence was
during the night.
hearing of witnesses alone
verdict and sentence in the
been two distinct meetings
already given at the one
There remains the true interpretation. They met in the
morning, not to obtain Pilate’s sanction for the execution of
their night sentence but to consider how to make Pilate
condemn Jesus, not on religious, but on common criminal
grounds. Before Pilate not a word is whispered about this
religious condemnation for blasphemy and only towards the
end, when in despair how fo obtain Pilate’s sentence, they
mention the point of religion. They wished the trial before
the Governor to be a purely secular one and in the morning
they wanted to draw up a new set of accusations for Pilate.
As St. Matthew puts it, if was only a question how to kill
Jesus.
With regard to the Vatican Declaration which suggested tec
me these quotations, that Declaration has nothing to do with
Christian charity but is a negation of that charity we owe
‘“especially to those who are of the household of the Faith.”
Charity does not require that we join in ‘‘quiet prayer and
meditation. . .to find out how the Jews define themselves in the
light of their religious experience,’’ as this absurd Vatican
Declaration puts it. We must look for another motive. The
motive of this Declaration and the theme of the so-called Holy
Year is reconciliation with the spiritual and racial descendants
of those who rejected Christ in their demand for Jewish racial
world supremacy.
As usual in Vatican || statements we find the truth to be
quite opposite of that expressed or implied. The JewisnChristian Declaration of the Vatican speaks tenderly of Jewish
tradition, but its purpose is to help wipe out the continuity of
that true Jewish tradition which the holy Simeon represented,
of the true Old Testament Jews of the time of Christ. It was
Jews of this mind and heart who comprised the majority of the
early Christians.
‘“Now dost thou dismiss thy servant, O Lord, according to thy
word, in peace, for my eyes have seen thy salvation. . .“’ With
these words Simeon gives testimony of his belief in the Divine
nature of the Child as God and Savior. In this he differs from the
Jewish majority following the Scribes and Pharisees, who
expected and demanded a Messiah who would give fo Israel
33
material and political dominance of the nations. This hope and
expectation of the Scribes and Pharisees, of the powerful and
influential leaders of the Jews, survives today. It is the most
Significant fact politically and religiously of our time.
APPENDIX B: 8 July 1973
THE MASS OF PAUL VI
(Why We Must Reject It)
The Mass of Pope Paul VI is heretically ambiguous and lacks
a positive right intention. That much is certain.
Concerning heretical ambiguity | shall quote from a paper by
Fr. Raymond Dulac, a highly respected priest-theologian. This
paper first appeared in the January 1971 issue of Itineraires,
and reads in part as follows concerning Pope Paul’s ‘’New
Mass”: ‘‘Alas, if is worse that heretical! If was and is ambiguous. It is flexible in every way; it is adjustable and can be
adapted to anyone’s pleasure: Individual will (or taste) thus
becomes the Rule and Measure of things.
‘‘Formal and clear heresy, in contrast, is like a stab of a
dagger, but ambiguity works like a slow poison. Heresy attacks
a special and precise dogma, but ambiguity, violating the
Constitution of the Faith, damages all dogmas.
‘‘One becomes a heretic in full consent of his knowledge, but
ambiguity can ruin a person’s Faith without his even Knowing
iL.
This, then, is why we must reject the
it is heretical, it lacks a right intention
and, lex orandi-lex credendi, it erodes
take part in it. It is an act of heresy
‘‘New Mass” -- because
and is therefore invalid;
the Faith of those who
and rebellion.
Again quoting Fr. Dulac: ‘‘A minute examination of the ‘New
Rite’ discloses numerous verbal tricks, mental reservations,
intentional omissions, etc. -- tricks that are part of the equip-
34
ment of experts; not
psychological experts
public relations.”’
at all theological experts but those
who excel in group-psychology and
Fr. Dulac is saying much the same thing as others have said
who have carefully studied the ‘“New Mass” -- that it is not
merely an unfortunate experiment, a mistake, but is a carefully
thought-out imitation of the true Catholic Liturgy. Protestant
ministers -- six of whom helped put it together -- have said that
they can perform it without departing from their Protestant
beliefs. One of them, M. Thurian, expressed it this way: ‘’This
new Ordo Missae is so profoundly ecumenical
that it is
theologically possible for Protestants to celebrate the Lord’s
Supper in the same words. The new simplified Offertory does
not anticipate a sacrificial act and therefore does away with the
difficulty that the old Offertory presented to ecumenical efforts.”’
Actually what they did was to do away with the true Offertory
and substitute what they call a ‘Preparation of the Gifts.”” And
M. Thurian is proved entirely correct in saying that the new
‘‘Offertory’’ does not anticipate a sacrificial act -- for no longer
does the Celebrant act in the Person of Christ at the Consecration, but merely narrates the Lord’s Supper as president
of an assembly. This narrative substitute for the Act of Consecration certainly invalidates Pope Paul’s New Ordo as a
Mass.
Consistent with this ecumenical objective is the change of
Christ’s own words at the Consecration -- ‘‘for many’’ changed
to ‘‘for all men.’’ Evidence of the Protestantization of our
religion is the table now in front or in place of the old altars, and
the removing of the Tabernacle from its former place of worship. And if Pope Paul had intended to make a lawful and orthodox change in the Mass, why did he call on men who don’t
believe in the Mass to collaborate in making the changes, while
he ignored the criticisms of grave doctrinal errors by eminent
Catholic theologians?
It was the group of Roman theologians
Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci who wrote that
Paul VI “‘teems with errors and insinuations
doctrine, and dismantles all defenses of the
associated with
the New Ordo of
against Catholic
Faith.’’
The Mass is not merely a liturgical rite but is a deposit of
defined dogmas. The rite itself is changeable in minor details.
But if the rite is changed to conceal or eliminate dogmas, the
39
new rite becomes illicit and invalid even for Popes. In this sense
Pope Pius V was binding all future popes by his Quo Primum
decree.
A few facts about existing law: In decreeing the so-called
Trent Mass Pope Pius V did not invent a new Mass but fixed the
manner -- “in perpetuity’ -- of offering the traditional Mass,
which had been given its form by the Popes many centuries
before. Pope Paul VI has taken none of the actions required to
legally abrogate the Quo Primum decree, but has imposed his
New Ordo by a mere “‘wish” that it be accepted. He has said
that this new so-called Mass of his was “’an act of obedience”’ to
Vatican II, which of course had no authority to compel a Pope to
do anything...
The ‘‘New Mass” is intended to be social, not sacrificial. It
therefore lacks, as | have said, a right intention to do what the
Church has always intended. It is foolish to suppose that the
personal intention of the celebrant can overcome all heresy and
mutilation of the Form -- all the more so since the celebrant’s
own orthodoxy is compromised by his performance of a perverted rite. Anyway Pope Leo XIII in his ‘Apostolicae Curae’
taught that a rite would be invalidated by the wrong intention of
its Originators.
Many confused Catholics reassure themselves that the ‘’New
Mass” is an acceptable rite because the good Msgr. X presides
at it. But what Msgr. X once was cannot change the heretical
liturgy he now performs. The most effective enemy within the
Church is the apparently orthodox and conservative priest who
presides at the New Ordo. It is he who gives it the stamp of
respectability. It is this usually middle-age or older priest who
has put over the Vatican || New Religion, not the foolish young
priests with their wierdo theology.
Pope St. Pius X in his great encyclical ‘’Pascendi”’ wrote of
those who do not hold the full Modernist doctrines, and he said
that even among those who did were ’’men of a certain merit.’
Will you risk your soul on “’a certain merit’’?
Our priests have compromised step-by-step, always telling
themselves they were being obedient. And so they were but not
to God, not to the Laws of the Church, not observing the oaths
they had taken to always uphold those Laws, particularly those
of the Mass as decreed by the Council of Trent. Since Vatican I|
they have gone along with every Modernist attack on the Mass,
36
the Sacraments, on doctrine and discipline, all the time telling
US about obedience.
Toreject an heretical liturgy is not to be disobedient, to
the Church, as we are told, but to remain faithful. It is
what our priests were morally bound to do when they
directed to turn toward the people and recite a narrative
Lord’s Supper, rather than
which they were ordained.
perform
the
Sacrificial
leave
to do
were
of the
Act
for
Those of the New Ordo priests who offer a traditional Mass on
Sundays only compound their guilt. | do not judge them but
warn against them as any Catholic has the right to do. As Dom
Prosper Gueranger, scholarly Abbot of Solesmes, taught:
‘“‘When the pastor becomes a wolf, it is the flock in the first
place which has the duty to defend itself.’’