Modernism's Own Geiger Counter

Things move a little more slowly insofar as my writing is concerned, perhaps never more so than during the past nearly nine weeks since I fractured my right hip in four places. However, I do put various items of interest in a “to do” box of sorts and tackle the subject when I am able to do so barring intervening events.

Such is the case with this commentary, which was prompted by the following email that I received on Monday, January 31, 2022, the Feast of Saint John Bosco:

Sehr geehrter Herr Professor Droleskey,

Kardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich aus Luxemburg ist ein enger Vertrauter des Papstes und Generalrelator bei der Weltbischofssynode. Heute Abend verleiht ihm der portugiesische Staatspräsident den renommierten Abraham-Geiger-Preis.

Im Interview mit der Herder Korrespondenz stellt sich Hollerich einer Welt, die sich verändert hat. Erneuerung gehört für ihn zum Leben der Kirche, wenn sie aus der Radikalität des Evangeliums stammt und aus dem Leben lernt, sagt er. Und manchmal hinke der Hirte hinter der Herde her.

Lesen Sie das Interview mit Kardinal Hollerich in unserem Februar-Heft. Lösen Sie jetzt Ihren Gutschein ein. Sie erhalten drei Gratis-Ausgaben der Herder Korrespondenz.

Gutschein einlösen

Herzliche Grüße

Ihr Volker Resing

Chefredakteur der Herder Korrespondenz

Although our daughter is fluent in the German language, I did not prevail upon her for a translation of this message, which was sent out via a robot-generated method, but submitted the text to an online translator, which resulted in the following translation:

Dear Professor Droleskey,

Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich of Luxembourg is a close confidant of the Pope and General Relator at the World Synod of Bishops. Tonight, the Portuguese President is awarding him the prestigious Abraham Geiger Prize.

In an interview with Herder Korrespondenz, Hollerich confronts a world that has changed. For him, renewal is part of the life of the Church if it comes from the radicalism of the Gospel and learns from life, he says. And sometimes the shepherd lags behind the flock.

Read the interview with Cardinal Hollerich in our February issue. Redeem your voucher now. You will receive three free copies of Herder Korrespondenz.

Redeem voucher

Best wishes

Your Volker Resing

Editor-in-Chief of Herder Korrespondenz

My first thought went something alike the lines of, “How in the world did I get on this list? Almost no one, relatively speaking, knows of my name nor of this website.” That thought faded as I did a search of my email to see if I had received any correspondence, discovering that I had purchased some document about the “Old Mass” on April 27, 2020. Thus ended the mystery of how I became a recipient of the news that the conciliar “archbishop” of Luxembourg, Jean-Claude Hollerich, who is a member of the Society of Jesus in its conciliar captivity, would receive the Abraham Geiger Prize, which is awarded to those who promote the work of the founder of “Reform Judaism,” Abraham Geiger, to reconcile religions to each other as they accommodate themselves to the events of the world.

As an Orthodox Talmudic rabbi noted at a “pro-life” talk given at the Church of Saint Pius X in Plainview, New York, in 1987, Abraham Geiger’s “Reform Judaism” sought to accommodate Talmudic belief and practice to the “thought of the “Enlightenment” and, eventually, to becoming an ever-evolving movement to “reinterpret” Pharisaic traditions, including coherent ideological framework to justify innovations in the liturgy and religious practice.” One does not need any kind of advanced degree in theology or philosophy to recognize this is exactly what Modernists have sought to do, first within the Catholic Church and then at the “Second” Vatican Council and in the “magisterial” of the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s antipopes.

 “As indicated on Abraham Geiger’s Wikipedia page, this evolutionary process was:

“nothing other than the principle of continual further development in accord with the times, the principle of not being slaves to the letter of the Bible, but rather to witness over and over its spirit and its authentic faith-consciousness.” (Abraham Geiger.)

This is, quite obviously, textbook Modernist thought, a thought that has been one of the foundational building blocks of conciliarism has been and continues to be at the essence of the false “pontificates” of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonia Maria Montini/Paul VI, Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, and Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis. “Reform” Talmudism, mainline Protestant sects and Modernism are as one in professing belief in the necessity of “adapting” their respective dogmas, such as they are, to the “needs of modern man, man as is” today.

For his part, Jean-Claude Hollerich revealed why he is such a worthy recipient of the Abraham Geiger Prize as he, like his fellow lay Jesuit revolutionary, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, believes in the “progress” of dogma and a “re-interpretation” of the Gospel in light of the needs of “modern man”:

What does your personal experience teach us about sharing the gospel today?

Hollerich:We must learn that the gospel must be translated again and again, into today's own experiences. New narratives must emerge from this. Scholarly exegesis has shown us that what is called the Word of God was prepared by a community using specific narrative patterns. This thought can help us understand the importance of faith today. I'm not a prophet, so I can't say exactly how we should do it. But at the same time I see the limits of our previous system, which has difficulties in reformulating the faith. In the Middle Ages, most believers could not read, but the faith was passed on. Looking at the Abbey of Echternach and its Gospels one learns to understand.

This the old Modernist lie that the “community” wrote the Gospels by looking back at what Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ might have said in their own circumstances and that the Gospels have no meaning except that to which the “community” gives to it in each age, lies that Pope Saint Pius X dealt with as follows in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907:

Moreover, they add, the Sacred Books, being essentially religious, are necessarily quick with life. Now life has its own truths and its own logic — quite different from rational truth aand rational logic, belonging as they do to a different order, viz., truth of adaptation and of proportion both with what they call the medium in which it lives and with the end for which it lives. Finally, the Modernists, losing all sense of control, go so far as to proclaim as true and legitimate whatever is explained by life.

We, Venerable Brethren, for whom there is but one and only one truth, and who hold that the Sacred Books, “written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, have God for their author”¹⁹ declare that this is equivalent to attributing to God Himself the lie of utility or officious lie, and We say with St. Augustine: “In an authority so high, admit but one officious lie, and there will not remain a single passage of those apparently difficult to practice or to believe, which on the same most pernicious rule may not be explained as a lie uttered by the author willfully and to serve a purpose.”²⁰ And thus it will come about, the holy Doctor continues, that “everybody will believe and refuse to believe what he likes or dislikes in them,” namely, the Scriptures. But the Modernists pursue their way eagerly. They grant also that certain arguments adduced in the Sacred Books in proof of a given doctrine, like those, for example, which are based on the prophecies, have no rational foundation to rest on. But they defend even these as artifices of preaching, which are justified by life. More than that. They are ready to admit, nay, to proclaim that Christ Himself manifestly erred in determining the time when the coming of the Kingdom of God was to take place; and they tell us that we must not be surprised at this since even He Himself was subject to the laws of life! After this what is to become of the dogmas of the Church? The dogmas bristle with flagrant contradictions, but what does it matter since, apart from the fact that vital logic accepts them, they are not repugnant to symbolical truth. Are we not dealing with the infinite, and has not the infinite an infinite variety of aspects? In short, to maintain and defend these theories they do not hesitate to declare that the noblest homage that can be paid to the Infinite is to make it the object of contradictory statements! But when they justify even contradictions, what is it that they will refuse to justify? (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

The likes of Jean-Claude Hollerich and Jorge Mario Bergoglio do not believe that Holy Writ was inspired by the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, and transcends the exigencies of time and space. They believe in a “spirit” who “blows with the wind” and can teach one thing to a “community” in one age and the exact opposite to a different “community” in a different age. To such Modernist revolutionaries, of course, “life” is the only real teacher, meaning that the entirety of Divine Revelation is simply a response to the “sheep” and their “needs,” which is what Jean-Claude Hollerich said at the conclusion of his recent interview:

Hollerich: There will be many ways to walk the gospel path. It would be wrong to first discuss strategies. My image for the Church is God's people on the move. In the novitiate I was once in a small village in France, there were hermitages outside the village. I was on my way to such a hermitage on a small path. The moon was very weak and my flashlight stopped working. I was afraid. Then I noticed that I no longer see the way, only the next step. That's how I got to the house. Perhaps that is the nature of the Church's movement for the foreseeable future. We don't know the whole way. The shepherd is also not the one who always knows the way and knows where to go. The shepherd has to go with the sheep, keep them together. Sometimes the sheep will find the way too, and the shepherd lags behind, step by step. With trust in God you can do that, into a new era. (https://www.herder.de/hk/hefte/archiv/2022/2-2022/manchmal-hinkt-der-hirte-hinter-der-herde-her-ein-gespraech-mit-kardinal-jean-claude-hollerich/.)

Typical of conciliar revolutionaries, this man has no concept about the nature of Divine Revelation nor of the nature of Holy Mother Church’s Divine Constitution. Everything must be in flux:

27. Although evolution is urged on by needs or necessities, yet, if controlled by these alone, it would easily overstep the boundaries of tradition, and thus, separated from its primitive vital principle, would make for ruin instead of progress. Hence, by those who study more closely the ideas of the Modernists, evolution is described as a resultant from the conflict of two forces, one of them tending towards progress, the other towards conservation. The conserving force exists in the Church and is found in tradition; tradition is represented by religious authority, and this both by right and in fact. By right, for it is in the very nature of authority to protect tradition: and in fact, since authority, raised as it is above the contingencies of life, feels hardly, or not at all, the spurs of progress. The progressive force, on the contrary, which responds to the inner needs, lies in the individual consciences and works in them — especially in such of them as are in more close and intimate contact with life. Already we observe, Venerable Brethren, the introduction of that most pernicious doctrine which would make of the laity the factor of progress in the Church. Now it is by a species of covenant and compromise between these two forces of conservation and progress, that is to say between authority and individual consciences, that changes and advances take place. The individual consciences, or some of them, act on the collective conscience, which brings pressure to bear on the depositories of authority to make terms and to keep to them.

With all this in mind, one understands how it is that the Modernists express astonishment when they are reprimanded or punished. What is imputed to them as a fault they regard as a sacred duty. They understand the needs of consciences better than anyone else, since they come into closer touch with them than does the ecclesiastical authority. Nay, they embody them, so to speak, in themselves. Hence, for them to speak and to write publicly is a bounden duty. Let authority rebuke them if it pleases — they have their own conscience on their side and an intimate experience which tells them with certainty that what they deserve is not blame but praise. Then they reflect that, after all, there is no progress without a battle and no battle without its victims; and victims they are willing to be like the prophets and Christ Himself. They have no bitterness in their hearts against the authority which uses them roughly, for after all they readily admit that it is only doing its duty as authority. Their sole grief is that it remains deaf to their warnings, for in this way it impedes the progress of souls, but the hour will most surely come when further delay will be impossible, for if the laws of evolution may be checked for a while they cannot be finally evaded. And thus they go their way, reprimands and condemnations not withstanding, masking an incredible audacity under a mock semblance of humility. While they make a pretense of bowing their heads, their minds and hands are more boldly intent than ever on carrying out their purposes. And this policy they follow willingly and wittingly, both because it is part of their system that authority is to be stimulated but not dethroned, and because it is necessary for them to remain within the ranks of the Church in order that they may gradually transform the collective conscience. And in saying this, they fail to perceive that they are avowing that the collective conscience is not with them, and that they have no right to claim to be its interpreters.

28. It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor, indeed, are they without forerunners in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our predecessor Pius IX wrote: “These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts.”¹⁴ On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new. We find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: ”Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason”;¹⁵ and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: ”The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth.” Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and maintained. For the same Council continues: “Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals, and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries — but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation.” (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Jean-Claude Hollerich believes that the sheep must lead the shepherds, not Christ the King and His immutable teaching. In this, therefore, one sees the very embodiment of Pope Saint Pius X’s warning that the Modernists advance a “most pernicious doctrine which would make of the laity the factor of progress in the Church” as they pretend to speak for the laity even though they are merely using the demands of some the laity to justify their own false theological precepts as the foundation for, if you will, a “reform Catholicism” that will always subservient to its Talmudic masters to keep the enthronement of man and the dethronement of Christ the King right where it has been since the French Revolution in 1789.

The Talmudists helped to create the world of Modernity by inspiring and guiding the leading figures of the Protestant Revolution, which, in turn, has quite indeed given free reign to the adversary in the place of Christ the King, something that William Thomas Walsh pointed out Philip II:

Modern research by Jewish historians has made it clear that in the sixteenth century large numbers of the English Protestants (and doubtless the most active in propaganda and organization) were Jews who had put on the convenient mask of Calvinism at Antwerp. For example, “from an early period,” says Dr. Lucien Wolf, “the Marranos in Antwerp had taken an active part in the Reformation movement, and had given up their mask of Catholicism for a not less hollow pretense of Calvinism. The change will readily be understood. The simulation of Calvinism brought them new friends, who, like them, were enemies of Rome, Spain and the Inquisition. It helped them in their fight against the Holy Office, and for that reason was very welcome to them. Moreover, it was a form of Christianity which came nearer to their own simple Judaism. The result was that they became zealous and valuable allies of the Calvinists.”

There was something more in most Calvinists teaching than the desire for religious freedom and the reform of abuses. It was more like the ancient hatred which had followed the Catholic Church from her cradle, seeking not her reform but her utter destruction. Calvin himself was as ruthless in this regard as Mohammed. One of his letters to English Protestants declares that those who refuse to give up the Roman Catholic faith must be put to the sword. Calvinism quickly became an international movement, with a world capital at Geneva and with Calvin as a Pope ruling over a city with a regimentation uncomfortably suggestive of some totalitarian state of the future.

The most active intelligence, liaison officers and propagandists of this international army were the Jews. Only four years after Luther's first outburst, Cardinal Aleander, papal nuncio, reported that Jews were printing and circulating the German monk's books in Flanders. From the Netherlands they sent Bibles even to Spain, concealed in double-bottomed wine-casks. In Ferrara, a great Jewish financial center, they printed heretical bibles for distribution in Italy and elsewhere. No less a person than Carranza, now languishing in the prisons of the Inquisition in Spain, said that this was the reason why the church had to discourage the reading of the Bible in the vernaculars, save in approved versions. Even Jewish physicians and men of business were spies and propaganda agents. In the very year after Philip returned to Spain to stamp out Protestantism there, the Jewish Doctor Rodrigo Lopez, who was to find so unhappy an end in England, was passing over from Antwerp to London as a good Protestant.

A new spirit was abroad in the world, surely. It was not the regenerated Christian thing that Luther imagined it to be. It was the reappearance, in the most formidable array, of something older and far more terrible. The Cambridge Modern History tells us its effect was “to transfer the allegiance of the human spirit from clerical to civil authority,” or to put it more bluntly, to deliver Christ once more into the hands of Caesar. The Jewish historian Graetz expresses it otherwise: “the interest of the marketplace had driven the interests of the church into the background.” Is this not a way of saying that after the great betrayal the money changers were flocking back into the Temple from which they had been ousted by the medieval Church when she was most free and vigorous.

That was the thing, the old and evil thing, the insidious and destructive thing, that Philip was resolved to destroy, if possible, before it ruined the world. It would be far-fetched to say that he saw all its potentialities in 1559. He could hardly have seen what Pope Pius IX saw in 1849, when he declared that all the evils of the modern world (including Communism and its attendant miseries) had their origin in the tragic sixteenth-century assault on the Catholic Faith in the name of Protestantism.

Did Philip imagine, then, that the Jews were to blame for all the ills of humanity? Not even his bitterest enemies could fairly accuse him of that. A Jew-baiter in the vulgar sense he certainly was not. When an attempt was made to introduce into Spain an organization know as the Order of the White Sword aimed against Jews as Jews, he put his foot down against it.  He knew and employed too many excellent men of Jewish ancestry to be taken in by any stupid and vicious theory of “Nordic” or “Aryan” superiority. It must have been apparent to a man of his shrewd common sense (in most matters) that even those Jews who persisted in the iniquity of attempting to destroy the Church could have accomplished very little without collaboration from within, from unworthy Christians. It always takes a Judas to complete the work of Annas and Caiaphas. (William Thomas Walsh, Philip II, published originally in 1937 by Sheed and Ward and republished by TAN Books and Publishers, 1987, pp. 239-252.)

It remains thus today that the reform Talmudists who have awarded the Abraham Geiger Prize to Jean-Claude Hollerich could not have accomplished what they have in helping to produce a “reform Catholicism” that is perfectly at peace with a world where there is no place for the Social Reign of Christ the King, a world that has become a modern, technocratic ape of the totalitarianism of ancient Rome wants all people to understand that they are to have no king but Caesar, no king but the self-serving, hypocritical elites who promote all manner of evils with self-righteousness and who sanctimoniously denounce all those who hold “unacceptable views.”

Writing in The Mystical City of Christ in the Modern World, Father Denis Fahey explained the principles of the French Revolution’s Declaration of the Rights of Man with which none other than Joseph Alois “Cardinal” Ratzinger wrote forty years ago that the “Second” Vatican Council had made its “official reconciliation” results in the triumph of the pantheism that unites reform Talmudists with their kindred spirits and fellow travelers in the counterfeit church of conciliarism:

By the grace of the Headship of the Mystical Body, our Lord Jesus Christ is both Priest and King of redeemed mankind and, as such, exercises a twofold influence upon us. Firstly, as a Priest, He communicates to us the supernatural life of grace by which we, while ever remaining distinct from God, can enter into the vision and love of the Blessed Trinity. We can thus become one with God, not, of course, in the order of substance or being, but in the order of operation, of the immaterial union of vision and love. The Divine Nature is the principle of the Divine Vision and Love, and by grace we are ‘made partakers of the Divine Nature.’ This pure Catholic doctrine is infinitely removed from Masonic pantheism. Secondly, as King, our Lord exercises an exterior influence on us by His government of us. As King, He guides and directs us socially and individually, in order to dispose all things for the reception of the Supernatural Life which He, as Priest, confers. 

Society had been organized in the thirteenth century and even down to the sixteenth, under the banner of Christ the King. Thus, in spite of deficiencies and imperfections, man’s divinization, through the Life that comes from the sacred Humanity of Jesus, was socially favoured. Modern society, under the influence of Satan, was to be organized on the opposite principle, namely, that human nature is of itself divine, that man is God, and, therefore, subject to nobody. Accordingly, when the favourable moment had arrived, the Masonic divnization of human nature found its expression in the Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789. The French Revolution ushered in the struggle for the complete organization of the world around the new divinity–Humanity. In God’s plan, the whole organization of a country is meant to aid the development of a country is meant to aid the development of the true personality of the citizens through the Mystical Body of Christ. Accordingly, the achievement of true liberty for a country means the removal of obstacles to the organized social acceptance of the Divine Plan. Every revolution since 1789 tends, on the contrary, to the rejection of that plan, and therefore to the enthronement of man in the place of God. The freedom at which the spirit of the revolution aims is that absolute independence which refuses submission to any and every order. It is the spirit breathed by the temptation of the serpent: ‘For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened; and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.’ Man decided then that he would himself lay down the order of good and evil in the place of God; then and now it is the same attitude. (Father Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World, p. 27.)

Consider these passages from the Selected Writings of Cardinal Pie of Poitiers:

The social reign of the Heart of Jesus is God in His place in the reason, in the conscience, in the heart and in the public life of man; the social reign of Satan, is God excluded from religion, from the conscience, from the heart and from the public life of man; it is humanity laicized and adoring itself.

"There is no middle ground; one must choose. The liberals, the liberals who say to themselves that they are and believe themselves to be Catholic, do not want to choose; they repudiate the social reign of the Heart of Jesus, they accept the social reign of Satan. Despite their verbal protestations, their work is founded on Freemasonry; they are of the party of Satan against the Heart of Jesus" (Canon Gaudeau, La Maison actuelle de Sainte Marguerite Marie, p. 25, de St. Just, pg. 201.) [Selected Writings of Cardinal Pie of Poitiers, Catholic Action Resource Center, Orlando, Florida, October, 2007, pp. 5-8.]

"If Jesus Christ," proclaims Msgr. Pie in a magnificent pastoral instruction,

"If Jesus Christ Who is our light whereby we are drawn out of the seat of darkness and from the shadow of death, and Who has given to the world the treasure of truth and grace, if He has not enriched the world, I mean to say the social and political world itself, from the great evils which prevail in the heart of paganism, then it is to say that the work of Jesus Christ is not a divine work. Even more so: if the Gospel which would save men is incapable of procuring the actual progress of peoples, if the revealed light which is profitable to individuals is detrimental to society at large, if the scepter of Christ, sweet and beneficial to souls, and perhaps to families, is harmful and unacceptable for cities and empires; in other words, if Jesus Christ to whom the Prophets had promised and to Whom His Father had given the nations as a heritage, is not able to exercise His authority over them for it would be to their detriment and temporal disadvantage, it would have to be concluded that Jesus Christ is not God". . . .

"To say Jesus Christ is the God of individuals and of families, but not the God of peoples and of societies, is to say that He is not God. To say that Christianity is the law of individual man and is not the law of collective man, is to say that Christianity is not divine. To say that the Church is the judge of private morality, but has nothing to do with public and political morality, is to say that the Church is not divine."

In fine, Cardinal Pie insists:

"Christianity would not be divine if it were to have existence within individuals but not with regard to societies."

Fr. de St. Just asks, in conclusion:

"Could it be proven in clearer terms that social atheism conduces to individualistic atheism? ("Selected Writings of Cardinal Pie of Poitiers, Catholic Action Resource Center, Orlando, Florida, October, 2007, p  22.] 

The spirit of Judeo-Masonic naturalism that is of the essence of conciliarism was dissected very well by Pope Leo XII in Ubi Primum, May 5, 1824:

But at what are these remarks aimed? A certain sect, which you surely know, has unjustly arrogated to itself the name of philosophy, and has aroused from the ashes the disorderly ranks of practically every error. Under the gentle appearance of piety and liberality this sect professes what they call tolerance or indifferentism. It preaches that not only in civil affairs, which is not Our concern here, but also in religion, God has given every individual a wide freedom to embrace and adopt without danger to his salvation whatever sect or opinion appeals to him on the basis of his private judgment. The apostle Paul warns us against the impiety of these madmen. "I beseech you, brethren, to behold those who create dissensions and scandals beyond the teaching which you have learned. Keep away from such men. They do not serve Christ Our Lord but their own belly, and by sweet speeches and blessings they seduce the hearts of the innocent."

Of course this error is not new, but in Our days it rages with a new rashness against the constancy and integrity of the Catholic faith. Eusebius cites Rhodo as his source for saying that the heretic Apelles in the second century had already produced the mad theory that faith should not be investigated, but that each man should persevere in the faith he was raised in. Even those who put faith in a crucified man were to be saved, according to Apelles, provided that they engaged in good works. Rhetorius too, as We learn from St. Augustine, used to claim that all the heretics walked on the right road and spoke truth. But Augustine adds that this is such nonsense that he cannot believe it. The current indifferentism has developed to the point of arguing that everyone is on the right road. This includes not only all those sects which though outside the Catholic Church verbally accept revelation as a foundation, but those groups too which spurn the idea of divine revelation and profess a pure deism or even a pure naturalism. The indifferentism of Rhetorius seemed absurd to St. Augustine, and rightly so, but it did acknowledge certain limits. But a tolerance which extends to Deism and Naturalism, which even the ancient heretics rejected, can never be approved by anyone who uses his reason. Nevertheless -- alas for the times; alas for this lying philosophy!-such a tolerance is approved, defended, and praised by these pseudophilosophers.

Certainly many remarkable authors, adherents of the true philosophy, have taken pains to attack and crush this strange view. But the matter is so self-evident that it is superfluous to give additional arguments. It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth Itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members. For we have a surer word of the prophet, and in writing to you We speak wisdom among the perfect; not the wisdom of this world but the wisdom of God in a mystery. By it we are taught, and by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and that no other name under heaven is given to men except the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth in which we must be saved. This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.

But Oh! the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How incomprehensible His judgments! God, who destroys the wisdom of the wise, has clearly given the enemies of His Church, who despise supernatural revelation, a perverted mind corresponding to the symbol of iniquity which was written on the forehead of the wicked woman in the Apocalypse. For what greater iniquity is there than for those proud men not only to abandon true religion, but also to seek to ensnare the imprudent by criticisms of every sort, in speech and writings filled with all deceit! Let God arise and restrain, make futile and destroy this unbridled license in all its manifestations. (Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum, May 5, 1824.)

Both Protestantism and Modernism are but the fruit of the unrelenting efforts of Talmudists, no matter where they might fall along the vast expanse of the Talmudic divide, to eradicate the Holy Name of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ from public life and to create a secular world that is based on anything but Catholicism as the one and only means of ordering men properly in their own individual lives and in the larger life of their nations. We can never be silent or indifferent about these facts as we beg Our Lady to help us to make reparation for our own sins and thus be better prepared and able to perform the Spiritual Works of Mercy so that all those outside the Faith, including all those who deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, will be converted to the true Faith before they and thus save their immortal souls for whose redemption Our King shed every drop of His Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross:

Pope Leo XIII had a few words to say about silence in the face of attacks upon truth:

But in this same matter, touching Christian faith, there are other duties whose exact and religious observance, necessary at all times in the interests of eternal salvation, become more especially so in these our days. Amid such reckless and widespread folly of opinion, it is, as We have said, the office of the Church to undertake the defense of truth and uproot errors from the mind, and this charge has to be at all times sacredly observed by her, seeing that the honor of God and the salvation of men are confided to her keeping. But, when necessity compels, not those only who are invested with power of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of faith, but, as St. Thomas maintains: "Each one is under obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers.'' To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind. This kind of conduct is profitable only to the enemies of the faith, for nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good. Moreover, want of vigor on the part of Christians is so much the more blameworthy, as not seldom little would be needed on their part to bring to naught false charges and refute erroneous opinions, and by always exerting themselves more strenuously they might reckon upon being successful. After all, no one can be prevented from putting forth that strength of soul which is the characteristic of true Christians, and very frequently by such display of courage our enemies lose heart and their designs are thwarted. Christians are, moreover, born for combat, whereof the greater the vehemence, the more assured, God aiding, the triumph: "Have confidence; I have overcome the world." Nor is there any ground for alleging that Jesus Christ, the Guardian and Champion of the Church, needs not in any manner the help of men. Power certainly is not wanting to Him, but in His loving kindness He would assign to us a share in obtaining and applying the fruits of salvation procured through His grace. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)

Catholics are never silent in the face of apostasy and betrayal and sacrilege and blasphemy.

Catholics must never be silent in the face of moral evils whose gravity is minimized by clerics and as the victims themselves are castigated for seeking justice for those who commit them. 

Just look at how so many Catholics have been silent about the doctrinal evils in the conciliar structures and about moral evils in the world. It is because Catholics have been silent about the doctrinal and moral evils of the today that they have grown to accept them, participate in them and to consider the fact of their legal protection to be irrelevant to the promotion of the common temporal good.

The fact that Abraham Geiger Prize has been awarded to yet another conciliar official (the late Karl Lehman, who was the conciliar “bishop” of Mainz, Germany, from 1983to 2016) for his “services to Judaism” speaks volumes about a falsified concept of the Gospel and a falsified, religiously indifferentist concept of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ that was denounced as follows by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique:

We wish to draw your attention, Venerable Brethren, to this distortion of the Gospel and to the sacred character of Our Lord Jesus Christ, God and man, prevailing within the Sillon and elsewhere. As soon as the social question is being approached, it is the fashion in some quarters to first put aside the divinity of Jesus Christ, and then to mention only His unlimited clemency, His compassion for all human miseries, and His pressing exhortations to the love of our neighbor and to the brotherhood of men. True, Jesus has loved us with an immense, infinite love, and He came on earth to suffer and die so that, gathered around Him in justice and love, motivated by the same sentiments of mutual charity, all men might live in peace and happiness. But for the realization of this temporal and eternal happiness, He has laid down with supreme authority the condition that we must belong to His Flock, that we must accept His doctrine, that we must practice virtue, and that we must accept the teaching and guidance of Peter and his successors. Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself in order to comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience. Whilst His heart overflowed with gentleness for the souls of good-will, He could also arm Himself with holy indignation against the profaners of the House of God, against the wretched men who scandalized the little ones, against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens without putting out a hand to lift them. He was as strong as he was gentle. He reproved, threatened, chastised, knowing, and teaching us that fear is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is sometimes proper for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body. Finally, He did not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering would be banished; but, by His lessons and by His example, He traced the path of the happiness which is possible on earth and of the perfect happiness in heaven: the royal way of the Cross. These are teachings that it would be wrong to apply only to one’s personal life in order to win eternal salvation; these are eminently social teachings, and they show in Our Lord Jesus Christ something quite different from an inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

Pope Saint Pius X’s condemnation of false philosophy of The Sillon is a condemnation of the false “pontificates” of each of the conciliar “popes,” including that of the “restorer of tradition,” Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, and his notorious successor, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a man who makes as little pretense about his naturalism as Ratzinger/Benedict has made of his Heglianism and rationalism.

The conciliar belief in absolute social equality is the preternatural work of the fallen angel, formerly the light-bearer, who believed he was the equal of the Most Holy Trinity and engaged in a revolution against Him:

[7] And there was a great battle in heaven, Michael and his angels fought with the dragon, and the dragon fought and his angels: [8] And they prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in heaven. [9] And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who seduceth the whole world; and he was cast unto the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. [10] And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying: Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: because the accuser of our brethren is cast forth, who accused them before our God day and night.

[11] And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of the testimony, and they loved not their lives unto death. (Apocalypse: 12: 7-11.)

Pope Pius IX summarized the condition of his day and ours at the end of The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864:

The faith teaches us and human reason demonstrates that a double order of things exists, and that we must therefore distinguish between the two earthly powers, the one of natural origin which provides for secular affairs and the tranquillity of human society, the other of supernatural origin, which presides over the City of God, that is to say the Church of Christ, which has been divinely instituted for the sake of souls and of eternal salvation…. The duties of this twofold power are most wisely ordered in such a way that to God is given what is God’s (Matt. 22:21), and because of God to Caesar what is Caesar’s, who is great because he is smaller than heaven. Certainly the Church has never disobeyed this divine command, the Church which always and everywhere instructs the faithful to show the respect which they should inviolably have for the supreme authority and its secular rights….

. . . Venerable Brethren, you see clearly enough how sad and full of perils is the condition of Catholics in the regions of Europe which We have mentioned. Nor are things any better or circumstances calmer in America, where some regions are so hostile to Catholics that their governments seem to deny by their actions the Catholic faith they claim to profess. In fact, there, for the last few years, a ferocious war on the Church, its institutions and the rights of the Apostolic See has been raging…. Venerable Brothers, it is surprising that in our time such a great war is being waged against the Catholic Church. But anyone who knows the nature, desires and intentions of the sects, whether they be called masonic or bear another name, and compares them with the nature the systems and the vastness of the obstacles by which the Church has been assailed almost everywhere, cannot doubt that the present misfortune must mainly be imputed to the frauds and machinations of these sects. It is from them that the synagogue of Satan, which gathers its troops against the Church of Christ, takes its strength. In the past Our predecessors, vigilant even from the beginning in Israel, had already denounced them to the kings and the nations, and had condemned them time and time again, and even We have not failed in this duty. If those who would have been able to avert such a deadly scourge had only had more faith in the supreme Pastors of the Church! But this scourge, winding through sinuous caverns, . . . deceiving many with astute frauds, finally has arrived at the point where it comes forth impetuously from its hiding places and triumphs as a powerful master. Since the throng of its propagandists has grown enormously, these wicked groups think that they have already become masters of the world and that they have almost reached their pre-established goal. Having sometimes obtained what they desired, and that is power, in several countries, they boldly turn the help of powers and authorities which they have secured to trying to submit the Church of God to the most cruel servitude, to undermine the foundations on which it rests, to contaminate its splendid qualities; and, moreover, to strike it with frequent blows, to shake it, to overthrow it, and, if possible, to make it disappear completely from the earth. Things being thus, Venerable Brothers, make every effort to defend the faithful which are entrusted to you against the insidious contagion of these sects and to save from perdition those who unfortunately have inscribed themselves in such sects. Make known and attack those who, whether suffering from, or planning, deception, are not afraid to affirm that these shady congregations aim only at the profit of society, at progress and mutual benefit. Explain to them often and impress deeply on their souls the Papal constitutions on this subject and teach, them that the masonic associations are anathematized by them not only in Europe but also in America and wherever they may be in the whole world.

To the Archbishops and Bishops of Prussia concerning the situation of the Catholic Church faced with persecution by that Government….

But although they (the bishops resisting persecution) should be praised rather than pitied, the scorn of episcopal dignity, the violation of the liberty and the rights of the Church, the ill treatment which does not only oppress those dioceses, but also the others of the Kingdom of Prussia, demand that We, owing to the Apostolic office with which God has entrusted us in spite of Our insufficient merit, protest against laws which have produced such great evils and make one fear even greater ones; and as far as we are able to do so with the sacred authority of divine law, We vindicate for the Church the freedom which has been trodden underfoot with sacrilegious violence. That is why by this letter we intend to do Our duty by announcing openly to all those whom this matter concerns and to the whole Catholic world, that these laws are null and void because they are absolutely contrary to the divine constitution of the Church. In fact, with respect to matters which concern the holy ministry, Our Lord did not put the mighty of this century in charge, but Saint Peter, whom he entrusted not only with feeding his sheep, but also the goats; therefore no power in the world, however great it may be, can deprive of the pastoral office those whom the Holy Ghost has made Bishops in order to feed the Church of God.

The entire Protestant English enterprise was seized by Jews, who were instrumental in forming the Grand Lodge of York Rite Masonry in England in 1717 (see Out of the Mouths of the Freemasons Themselves for a Masonic source to buttress this statement), and the scheme of the American founding principles and the Constitution itself was designed the advance the interests of the Jews and to assure their “right” to participate in public life without being forced to take an oath of some kind of belief in a generic office. This is one of the reasons for the prohibition of a religious oath as found in Article VI of the Constitution as it provided access to Jews and to the “freethinkers” to hold public office without “harassment” from any kind of clergy, whether false or true.

William Thomas Walsh amplified his point about influence of the Sephardic Jew on Continental Europe and England in footnote eight of Chapter XXII of book on Queen Isabella: The Last Crusader, explaining how Oliver Cromwell was influenced by these Jewish merchants and spies:

8. Jewish Encyclopedia Vol. V., p. 168. “Cromwell was by no means unacquainted with the resources and wide activities of the Sephardic Jews of the Continent,” says Albert M. Hyamson in his History of the Jews in England, p. 176. “The Spanish and Portuguese trade was in their hands; the Levant trade also to a considerable extent. Jews had helped to found the Hamburg Bank, and were closely connected with the Dutch and West Indian Companies. As bullion merchants, also, Jews were prominent, and, in addition, many of them owned fleets of merchantmen. The second reason for Crowell’s favor was the great assistance these crypto-Jews of London and their agents on the Continent were to the government of the Commonwealth. And, when employing them on secret service, he was well aware of their true faith.” Carvajal, a secret Jew who went to England as Portuguese ambassador, was enormously wealthy, and placed a whole army of continental agents and spies at the disposal of Cromwell. The share of the Jews in promoting the Protestant Reformation is pointed out by Rabbi Lewis in Stranger than Fiction, p. 248 et seq. Luther, he observes, studied Hebrew with Reuchlin, a pupil of Jewish scholars in Italy, and the Jews, “by their very presence in Europe . . . had helped to bring the heresy into being. But once it was born, they let it severely alone.” Browne is right, too, in discerning the Liberalism is of Jewish articles. “It is little wonder that the enemies of social progress, the monarchists and the Churchmen, came to speak of the whole liberal movement as nothing but a Jewish plot,” he says on p. 305. Liberalism, he adds, “was the Protestant Reformation in the world of politics  . . . Incidentally, however, it brought complete release at least to the Jew.” The Jewish Encyclopedia recalls that Luther was said to be “a Jew at heart, and that he remarked on one occasion, “If I were a Jew I would rather be a hog than a Christian.” (William Thomas Walsh, Isabella of Spain: The Last Crusader, published originally by Robert McBride and Company in 1930 and republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1987, pp. 466-467.)

The only true service that Catholics can render to those who are Jewish is, other than to treat all those we know and meet with the kindness of the Most Sacred Heart and Jesus and to perform the Spiritual and Corporal Works of Mercy as far as we are able to do, to seek their conversion to the true Faith and to remember to pray for this intention daily.

We will not be awarded the Abraham Geiger Prize for our prayers and sacrifices on behalf of the conversion of Jews, to convert all non-Catholics, heretics, schismatics, and lapsed Catholics. Indeed, we will be deemed “haters” and maybe even “terrorists” for taking seriously the following words of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ before He Ascended into Heaven:

Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. (Matthew 28: 18-20.)

No, we will be hated by the world and its potentates for trying to be faithful to this immutable Divine command despite our own sins. We will receive nothing but scorn from the world while the conciliar revolutionaries receive plaudits and prizes for their heresies, apostasies, and infidelities.

If, though, we have a good intention, our efforts to seek the conversion of everyone to the true Faith could, if centered on Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary and reliant upon the power of her Green Scapular and her Miraculous Medal as we beg her to fulfill our pledges for being enrolled in her Brown Scapular of Mount Carmel, result in our hearing the following words from Our Divine Redeemer, Christ the King, if we die in a state of Sanctifying Grace as a member of His true Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order:

Well done, good and faithful servant, because thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will place thee over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. (Matthew 25: 21.)

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 Joachin and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthazar, pray for us.