Who Are They Trying to Convince at This Late Date?

As I have noted a few times in the past, one of the saving graces, if I can use that phrase, of the plethora of documents issued by the conciliar revolutionaries who work behind the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River is that very few Catholics are even aware of these documents, no less take the time to read and consider.

Oh, true, some Catholics may hear about this or that document or even see a headline about then. However, most Catholics are too busy with their lives even pay attention to much else other than the cost of living and whatever particular set of bread and circuses hold their interest.

The conciliar revolutionaries do not realize this, of course, which is why they take themselves so seriously and do so with such pomposity. Thus, they continue to churn out one document after another to repeat their falsehoods while being totally heedless that their various “masterpieces” convince no one of anything except, I should not, in the instance or two when a believing Catholic does take the time to read them and then say, “Enough! This is not Catholic. This cannot come from the Catholic Church.”

Rather than convincing people of their conciliar propaganda, therefore, the only people whom the conciliar revolutionaries wind up influencing are those who take the Catholic Faith seriously and know that ecclesiological history did not begin on October 29, 1958, with the “election” of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII nor with the start of the crapulous Rosicrucian Mason’s council on Saturday, October 11, 1962, the Feast of the Divine Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Ah, but the conciliar revolutionaries do believe that the robber council was a “new Pentecost” that dispensed with the “past” and ushered in a “new” Catholicism open to the world, meaning that it was open to the devil and all the heresies he has propagated in the past nearly two millennia.

How do I know this?

Well, the recent “doctrinal note” issued by conciliar dicasteries for doctrine of the false faith, promoting Christian unity, interreligious dialogue has said so in almost as many words:

6. From the opening of the Second Vatican Council in 1962, Pope Saint John XXIII, regarded as the “precursor of dialogue,” [7] explicitly called for the promotion not only of Christian unity but also of a clarity: respectful encounter with the other is an indispensable condition for living the Gospel fully. A few months later, in the Encyclical Pacem in Terris, the Pontiff called upon everyone to respect the dignity of every person.[9]

7. Pope Saint Paul VI confirmed this direction in the Encyclical Ecclesiam Suam, inviting the Church to “enter into dialogue with the world in which it lives.”[10] According to this Encyclical, the Church is called to engage with renewed fervor in a “dialogue conducted with all people of good will both inside and outside the Church,”[11] excluding no one and respecting the particular characteristics and dynamics proper to the various contexts of the dialogue. The vision of a dialogue structured methodologically in different circles—the dialogue for peace, dialogue with believers in God, and dialogue with the separated Christian brothers and sisters[12]—has served as a kind of blueprint for the development of ecumenical, interreligious, and intercultural dialogue in the postconciliar period. Grounded in doctrinal clarity, sincere listening, and profound respect for those with whom Christians engage in dialogue, this approach is regarded as an essential component of the Church’s mission.[13] Thus, the Church affirms clearly that the way of dialogue is neither an expedient strategy nor a renunciation of one’s own identity, but an authentically evangelical path.

8. Pope Saint Paul VI highlighted the distinctive contribution of Nostra Aetate at the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council: “May our dear Christian brothers and sisters who are still separated from full communion with the Catholic Church look upon this manifestation of the Church’s face, made even more beautiful. And may the followers of other religions—especially the Jews, with whom the kinship of Abraham unites us—likewise look upon [this document] not as an object of reproach or suspicion, but of respect, love, and hope. For the Church advances in the firmness of truth and faith, and in the spread of justice and charity. Thus does the Church live.”[14]

9. Nostra Aetate brings a fundamental principle to light. Respect and esteem are the indispensable foundations for interreligious dialogue and for relations with Judaism, making it possible to overcome attitudes of exclusion, contempt, or indifference that had long prevailed: “We cannot call upon God as the Father of all if we refuse to behave in a fraternal manner toward certain people who have been created in the image of God. […] The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion.”[15] In this sense, the Declaration is situated within the relational anthropology of Gaudium et Spes, in which the other is not perceived as a threat but recognized as an interlocutor with whom to build, in a spirit of reciprocity, a more just and fraternal society.

Three is not one reference anywhere in the text or in the end notes of “A Journey to Hope,” whose more accurate title would “A Journey to Nowhere but Hell Itself,” to any of Holy Mother Church’s twenty true general councils, any of Holy Mother Church’s true popes, any of Holy Mother Church’s Fathers and Doctors, nor too any martyr who gave his life rather even to give the appearance of rendering signs of respect to the symbols, idols, or places or devil worship of false religions. There are no such references because what the counterfeit church of conciliarism teaches concerning Judaism and other religions is entirely opposed to the immutable teaching of the one and only true Church, the Catholic Church.

“A Journey of Hope” spends considerable time discussing reiterating the “continuity” found in the anti-papacies of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI, Karol Jozef Wojtyla/John Paul II, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, and Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV about Judaism and the Jews:

The Origin and Scope of Nostra Aetate: a Response to the Shoah

4. The Declaration Nostra Aetate emerged in the aftermath of the Second World War. Initially, it was not conceived as a document about dialogue with other religions, but rather as a response to the tragic consequences of antisemitism, which culminated in the Shoah. Already deeply sensitive to this issue, Pope Saint John XXIII met with the Jewish scholar Jules Isaac through the mediation of Maria Vingiani, founder of the Secretariat for Ecumenical Activities. Following this encounter, he entrusted Cardinal Augustin Bea with drafting a conciliar text aimed at healing and renewing the relationship between the Church and the Jewish people. This project was further developed during the sessions of the Second Vatican Council and ultimately took concrete form in a document that, like the mustard seed in the Gospel (cf. Mk 4:31-32), grew beyond all expectations, becoming a great tree that embraced not only relations with Judaism but also dialogue with the various religions. In it, one can discern an ever more universal openness, which the Church wishes to offer to her brothers and sisters of other religious traditions in a spirit of respect and a shared pursuit of truth.

5. Official and institutional Catholic-Jewish dialogue finds its foundation in paragraph 4 of the Declaration. This is the first magisterial statement that clearly recognizes the Jewish roots of Christianity. It cites Romans 9:4-5, which affirms that the patriarchs belong to the People of Israel and that Christ, according to the flesh, descended from them. The Declaration also states that “the Apostles, the Church’s mainstay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ’s Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people.”[4] In this regard, speaking of the person of Jesus, a document of the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity (today the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity) explains: “Jesus was and always remained a Jew […]. Jesus is fully a man of his time and of his environment: the Jewish Palestinian one of the first century, the anxieties and hopes of which he shared. This cannot but underline both the reality of the Incarnation and the very meaning of the history of salvation, as it has been revealed in the Bible (cf. Rom 1:3-4; Gal 4:4-5).”[5] To put it in the words of the Evangelist John (cf. Jn 1:14), as reinterpreted by the Protestant theologian K. Barth, the Word became “Jewish flesh”[6] and dwelt among us. Jesus’ dwelling place was the Judaism of his time, the original soil from which the Ecclesia ex circumcision, and later the Ecclesia ex gentibus, developed (as illustrated, for example, by the mosaic in the Basilica of Santa Sabina in Rome). (Note. A Journey of Hope. Sixty Years of Interreligious Dialogue and Fraternity in the Light of the Conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate, 16 September 2026.)

Comment:

This is blasphemously heretical as Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was made Incarnate by the power of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, in the Virginal and Immaculate Womb of His Most Blessed Mother to do the Will of His Co-Equal, Co-Eternal God the Father by fulfilling all that He had caused to be written of Himself in the Old Testament and thus to atone for our sins during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday, thus abolishing the Mosaic Covenant once and for all and ratifying the New and Eternal Covenant that He had instituted at the Last Supper on Maundy Thursday.

As the Theandric Person, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the New Adam, had a perfect human nature hypostatically united to His Sacred Divinity. Our Lord was omniscient as God when He became Incarnate in the spotless tabernacle of Our Lady’s Virginal and Immaculate Womb and He remained omniscient through His life as Man. He knew precisely what He was going to do at every moment of His life here on earth. Nothing was a mystery to Him, and He knew that His Redemptive Act on the wood of the Holy Cross would institute a new ecclesia—a new church—replace Judaism, and that Church is the Catholic Church, which did not “develop” as it was founded by Our Lord Himself upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope.

Once again, therefore, it is necessary to turn to Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton to refute this heresy found in “A Journey of Hope” courtesy of the Protestant heretic and Judaizer named Karl Barth:

This intrinsically social aspect of salvation is brought out in the account, in the Acts of the Apostles, of the end of St. Peter's sermon on the first Christian Pentecost and of the results of that sermon.

Now when they had heard these things, they had compunction in their hearts and said to Peter and to the rest of the apostles: What shall we do, men and brethren?

But Peter said to them: Do penance: and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins. And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call.

And with very many other words did he testify and exhort them, saying: Save yourselves from this perverse generation.

They therefore that receive his word were baptized: and there were added in that day about three thousand souls.

And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles and in the communication of the breaking of bread and in prayers. [Acts, 2: 37-42]

According to the inspired word of God in the Acts of the Apostles, St. Peter exhorted the men who listened to him of that first Christian Pentecost to “save themselves from this perverse generation.” Furthermore, we are told that the individuals who “received his word” received the sacrament of baptism, and that they were “added” to the number of the disciples of Christ who had been with St. Peter and the other disciples before he delivered his sermon. The society of the disciples of Jesus Christ, the organization which we know now as the Catholic Church, continued with this great number of new members, to do exactly what it had been doing since the day of Our Lord's ascension into heaven.

We read that the group, composed as it was of these new converts who had come into the Church as a result of St. Peter's Pentecost sermon and of the disciples who had entered the group during Our Lord's public life, was “persevering in the doctrine of the apostles and in the communication of the breaking of bread and in prayers.” And we read the same sort of account of the activity of the original band of disciples that returned to Jerusalem immediately after the Ascension.

Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount that is called Olivet, which is nigh Jerusalem, within a sabbath day's journey.

And when they were come in they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Batholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus and Simon Zelotes and Jude the brother of James.

All these were persevering with one mind in prayer, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. [Acts 1. 12-14]

Both the text and the context of the Acts of the Apostles assure us that the people who heeded St. Peter's injunction to save themselves from this perverse generation entered the true Church of God, the kingdom of God on earth. They entered the Catholic Church.

Now, if St. Peter's words on this occasion meant anything at all, they signified that the individuals to whom he was speaking were in a situation which would lead them to eternal ruin if they continued in it. They were described as belonging to a “perverse generation.” They were told to save themselves by getting out of it. The institution into which they would enter by the very fact of leaving “this perverse generation” was none other that the society of Our Lord's disciples, the Catholic Church itself.

The clear implication of St. Peter's statement is that the Church, the kingdom of God, was the only institution or social unit of salvation. Not to be within this society was to be in the perverse generation within which a man was faced with eternal and entire spiritual ruin. To leave the perverse generation was to enter the Church.

In other words, the clear teaching of this section of the Acts of the Apostles is precisely that given by Pope Leo XIII in the opening passages of his encyclical Humanum genus. The central point of this teaching is that the entire human race is divided between the kingdom of God, the ecclesia, and the kingdom of Satan. To be saved from the kingdom of Satan is to enter the kingdom of God. In this context it is not difficult to see how, by God's institution, the Catholic Church, the one and only supernatural kingdom of God on earth, is presented as a necessary means for the attainment of salvation. By God's institution the process of salvation itself involves a passage from the kingdom of Satan into the ecclesia.

Now, for the proper understanding of this doctrine, especially in view of the teaching on this subject contained in some recent books and articles, it is imperative to understand the religious condition of the people to whom St. Peter delivered his sermon on that first Christian Pentecost. Again, the Acts of the Apostles contains essentially important information.

This book describes them in general with the statement that “there were dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews, devout men out of every nation under heaven.” The homelands of these men are enumerated in the statement attributed to the multitude itself.

And they were all amazed and wondered saying: Behold, are not all these that speak, Galileans?

And how have we heard, every man, our own tongue wherein we were born?

Parthinians and Medes and Elamites and inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,

Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers from Rome,

Jews also and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians: we have heard them speak in our own tongues the wonderful works of God. [Acts 2: 7-11.]

According to the text of the Acts, a great many of these people were pilgrims, men and women who had come to Jerusalem to celebrate the great Jewish feast of Pentecost. Our Lord had died on the Cross only a little over seven weeks before St. Peter delivered that sermon, and many of the people who listened to St. Peter must have been on their way to Jerusalem at the very time Our Lord died. They had begun their pilgrimage as an act of worship in the Jewish religion at the very time when the Jewish religion was the one approved especially by God and when the Jewish politico-religious commonwealth was actually the supernatural kingdom of God on earth, the ecclesia of the Old Testament.

These people as individuals probably had nothing whatsoever to do with the persecution and the murder of the Incarnate Word of God. They had started on their journey as members of God's chosen people, the people of His covenant. Their journey to Jerusalem was made precisely in order to worship and honor God. They were truly devout individuals.

Yes, seven weeks before, the religious body to which they belonged had ceased to be God's ecclesia. The Jewish politico-religious social unit had definitively rejected Our Lord, the Messias promised in the Old Testament. This company had hitherto enjoyed its position as God's ecclesias or His congregatio fidelium by virtue of the fact this it had accepted and professed its acceptance of the divine message about the promised Redeemer. In rejecting the Redeemer Himself, this social unit had automatically rejected the teaching God had given about Him. The rejection of this message constituted an abandonment of the divine faith itself. By manifesting this rejection of the faith, the Jewish religious unit fell from its position as the company of the chosen people. It was no longer God's ecclesia, His supernatural kingdom on earth. It became part of the kingdom of Satan.

While the great Jewish social unit was rejecting Our Lord and thus repudiating its acceptance of the divinely revealed message about Him, the little company of the disciples, organized by Our Lord around Himself, retained its faith. It continued to accept and to obey Our Lord and to believe the divinely revealed that centered around Him. Thus at the moment of Our Lord's death on Calvary, the moment when the old dispensation was ended and the Jewish religious association ceased to be the supernatural kingdom of God on earth, this recently organized society of Our Lord's disciples began to exist as the ecclesia or the kingdom.

This society was the true continuation of Israel. The men who were within it were the true sons of Abraham, in that they had the genuine faith of Abraham. This society was the new association of the chosen people. Its members were, as St. Paul called them, the elect or the chosen of God.

It must be understood, incidentally, that this society was actually God's supernatural kingdom on earth in a much more complete and perfect sense than the old Jewish commonwealth had ever been. The old Israel had constituted the pople of the covenant. According to God's unfailing promise, the Redeemer was to be born within that company. Yet conditions had never been such that a man had to be within this company in order to attain to eternal salvation. (Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation In Light of the Recent Pronouncements of the Holy See, published in 1958 and reprinted in 2006 by Seminary Press, Round Top, New York, pp, 136-139.)

It cannot get any clearer than the following sentence in the selection from Monsignor Fenton's masterpiece of Catholic theology just quoted:

By manifesting this rejection of the faith, the Jewish religious unit fell from its position as the company of the chosen people. It was no longer God's ecclesia, His supernatural kingdom on earth. It became part of the kingdom of Satan. (Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation In Light of the Recent Pronouncements of the Holy See, published in 1958 and reprinted in 2006 by Seminary Press, Round Top, New York, p. 139.)

The Catholic Church will never have a “new” relationship with Judaism both Pope Eugene IV’s Cantate Domino, issued by the Council of Florence on February 4, 1442, and Pope Pius XII’s Mystici Corporis Christi, June 29, 1943, explained clearly:

It [the Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord's coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors. Therefore, it commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism, to cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation. Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people, but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently, but so ,that, when danger of death is imminent, they be baptized in the form of the Church, early without delay, even by a layman or woman, if a priest should be lacking, just as is contained more fully in the decree of the Armenians. . . .

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, February 4, 1442.)

28.That He completed His work on the gibbet of the Cross is the unanimous teaching of the holy Fathers who assert that the Church was born from the side of our Savior on the Cross like a new Eve, mother of all the living. [28] "And it is now," says the great St. Ambrose, speaking of the pierced side of Christ, "that it is built, it is now that it is formed, it is now that is .... molded, it is now that it is created . . . Now it is that arises a spiritual house, a holy priesthood." [29] One who reverently examines this venerable teaching will easily discover the reasons on which it is based.

29.And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area -- He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the house of Israel [30] -the Law and the Gospel were together in force; [31] but on the gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees, [32] fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, [33] establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. [34] "To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom." [35]

30. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, [36] in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; [37] and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head in His Church. "For it was through His triumph on the Cross," according to the teaching of the Angelic and Common Doctor, "that He won power and dominion over the gentiles"; [38] by that same victory He increased the immense treasure of graces, which, as He reigns in glory in heaven, He lavishes continually on His mortal members it was by His blood shed on the Cross that God's anger was averted and that all the heavenly gifts, especially the spiritual graces of the New and Eternal Testament, could then flow from the fountains of our Savior for the salvation of men, of the faithful above all; it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would not have been united to this Mystical Body. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)

Night and day, ladies and gentlemen. The night of the matter comes from the adversary and is promoted by the counterfeit church at the behest of its Talmudic masters. The light and truth of the matter is from Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, He Who is the very Light of the world.

The Old Covenant has been superseded. It has the power to save no one. Anyone who contends that it does is a heretic. There are not two “parallel paths” to salvation.

Moreover, the Catholic Church has always been kind and merciful to the erring and she has always exercised true Charity towards them by exhorting them to the convert to her maternal bosom and, when necessary, to defend them temporally in situations of grave need as Pope Pius XII did so generously and courageously during World War II.

Father Denis Fahey definitively refuted the charge of antisemitism as applied to faithful Catholics who seek the truth in love by opposing Judaism in all its varied contemporary form and who treat its adherents with kindness and dignity while doing what they can, if “only” by prayer,  to plant the seeds of the true Faith in their immortal souls, which is a fundamental Spiritual Work of Mercy and that the most charitable thing that can be done for anyone whose soul is captive to the devil by means of Original Sin and/or to those among the baptized whose souls are captive to the devil by means of the horror of Mortal Sin:

The annual celebration of the Feast of Christ the King is meant to lead men “to reflect on the Last Judgement, in which Christ, who has been cast out of public life, despised, neglected and ignored, will severely avenge such insults.” Our Lord Jesus Christ came down to proclaim His Father’s programme for the restoration of ordered life in the world and died proclaiming it. After Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus had catalogued modern errors against the order of society demanded by the infinite dignity of the Life of Sanctifying Grace, restored through the foundation of the Mystical Body on Calvary, Popes Leo XIII, Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI and Pius XII have set forth in their Encyclicals the Positive programme for order enjoined upon us by Christ Our Head, Priest and King. In this series of books I am endeavouring to make known that positive programme to as many as possible, so that they may have a thorough knowledge of the order of the world they should stand for as members of Christ. The series is placed under the patronage of St. Joan of Arc. At the beatification of that lovely saint in 1908, Blessed Pius X sadly reminded members of Christ that: “All the strength of Satan’s reign is due to the easy-going weakness of Catholics.”

As I was not able to bring out this book when it was originally written, it has been laid aside for years. In the meantime, the need for setting forth the full doctrine of the Kingship of Christ has been forcibly brought home to me by the confusion created in minds owing to the use of the term “Anti-Semitism.” The Hitlerite naturalistic or anti-supernatural régime in Germany gave to the world the odious spectacle of a display of Anti-Semitism, that is, of hatred of the Jewish Nation. Yet all the propaganda about that display of Anti-Semitism should not have made Catholics forget the existence of age-long Jewish Naturalism or Anti-Supernaturalism. Forgetfulness of the disorder of Jewish Naturalistic opposition to Christ the King is keeping Catholics blind to the danger that is arising from the clever extension of the term “Anti-Semitism,” with all its war-connotation in the minds of the unthinking, to include any form of opposition to the Jewish Nation’s naturalistic aims. For the leaders of the Jewish Nation, to stand for the rights of Christ the King is logically to be “anti-Semitic.”

In March, 1917, Pope Benedict XV wrote to the Archbishop of Tours: “In the midst of the present upheavals, it is important to repeat to men that by her divine institution the Catholic Church is the only ark of salvation for the human race . . . . Accordingly, it is more seasonable than ever to teach . . . that the truth which liberates, not only individuals, but societies, is supernatural truth in all its fulness and in all its purity, without attenuation, diminution or compromise: in a word, exactly as Our Lord Jesus Christ delivered it to the world.” These sublime words of the Vicar of Christ have nerved me to do all in my power to set forth the opposition of every form of Naturalism, including Jewish Naturalism, to the supernatural Reign of Christ the King. In addition, for over twenty years I have been offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass every year, on the Feasts of the Resurrection, Corpus Christi, SS. Peter and Paul and the Assumption of Our Blessed Mother, for the acceptance by the Jewish Nation of the Divine Plan for order. Thus I have been striving to follow the example of our Divine Master. Blessed Pius X insists that “though Jesus was kind to those who had gone astray, and to sinners, He did not respect their erroneous convictions, however sincere they appeared to be the need of combining firmness in the proclamation of the integral truth with loving charity towards those in error is insisted on, even more emphatically, by Pope Pius XI: “Comprehending and merciful charity towards the erring,” he writes, “and even towards the contemptuous, does not mean and can not mean that you renounce in any way the proclaiming of, the insisting on, and the courageous defence of the truth and its free and unhindered application to the realities about you. The first and obvious duty the priest owes to the world about him is service to the truth, the whole truth, the unmasking and refutation of error in whatever form or disguise it conceals itself.”

A day will come when the Jewish Nation will cease to oppose order and will turn in sorrow and repentance to Him Whom they rejected before Pilate. That will be a glorious triumph for the Immaculate Heart of Our Blessed Mother. Until that day dawns, however, their naturalistic opposition to the True Supernatural Order of the world must be exposed and combated. (Father Denis Fahey, Foreword, The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation.)

Father Fahey pointed out above that Catholics must never be intimidated by the slogan of anti-Semitism. Consider once again these telling words:

Yet all the propaganda about that display of Anti-Semitism should not have made Catholics forget the existence of age-long Jewish Naturalism or Anti-Supernaturalism. Forgetfulness of the disorder of Jewish Naturalistic opposition to Christ the King is keeping Catholics blind to the danger that is arising from the clever extension of the term “Anti-Semitism,” with all its war-connotation in the minds of the unthinking, to include any form of opposition to the Jewish Nation’s naturalistic aims. For the leaders of the Jewish Nation, to stand for the rights of Christ the King is logically to be “anti-Semitic.” (Father Denis Fahey, Foreword, The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation.) 

It is important to keep these distinctions in mind as it is not "anti-Semitic" to adhere to the Catholic Faith as it has been taught perennially without making any concessions to conciliarism. It is not "anti-Semitic" to oppose the falsehoods of conciliarism.

It is not "anti-Semitic' to oppose the murderous policies of the Zionist State of Israel.

It is not "anti-Semitic" to oppose Zionism.

It is not "anti-Semitic" to identify that the chief purveyors of objective evil in the United States of America and many other parts of the world are adherents of the Talmud.

It is not "anti-Semitic" to pray and to work for the conversion of Talmudic Jews.

It is not "anti-Semitic" to pray and work for the restoration of the Social Reign of Christ the King.

It is not "anti-Semitic" to apply the rigors of true historical research into the events that occurred during World War II. Research can be accepted or rejected. To apply the label of "anti-Semitic" to research because those who have conducted it have reached conclusions not accepted by the "mainstream" is the height of fascistic duplicity.

There are countless examples of conciliar “bishops” throughout the world who have paid their obeisance to their Talmudic masters and, as there is no need of reiterating here, the conciliar authorities revised the Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews in the Great Orations that had been prayed from time immemorial in the Mass of Tradition when they composed the synthetic concoction known as the Novus Ordo liturgical abomination. It is also important to remember that none other than the “restorer of tradition,” the late Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, personally rewrote the Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews found in the “John XXIII Missal” at the behest of Talmudists who complained about it after the late antipope had issued Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007, before being faced with a firestorm of protest from those he sought to appease after they were displeased by his revision.

Three successive conciliar “popes” have entered synagogues, wherein they were treated as inferiors while Talmudists greeted them with hymns in Hebrew boasting of their waiting for the Messias to come, to reaffirm their congregants that their falsehoods were pleasing to God.

Our Lord wants everyone to convert to the true Faith, including today’s Talmudists.

Consider the words of Pope Benedict XVI’s letter to the Archbishop of Tours in March of 1917 once again:

“In the midst of the present upheavals, it is important to repeat to men that by her divine institution the Catholic Church is the only ark of salvation for the human race . . . . Accordingly, it is more seasonable than ever to teach . . . that the truth which liberates, not only individuals, but societies, is supernatural truth in all its fulness and in all its purity, without attenuation, diminution or compromise: in a word, exactly as Our Lord Jesus Christ delivered it to the world.”

Can any rational human being reading these words claim that a document such as Nostra Aetate was faithful to this charge?

No number of antipapal allocutions or documents issued by conciliar dicasteries can change Catholic truth.

The Old Covenant has been superseded. It has the power to save no one. Anyone who contends that it does is a heretic.

Yes, the events of World War II, as horrible as they were, have been exaggerated and exploited by the Talmudists to shame Catholics into feeling guilty about crimes for which they were not responsible.

Indeed, it was the Talmudic exploitation of the Protestant Revolution’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King that led directly to the rise and subsequent godless “philosophies” and “ideologies” of Bolshevism and Nazism, which were just two sides of the same socialist coin. Jewish bankers and industrialists were very much responsible for helping to create the religiously indifferentist civil state in Europe.

As noted earlier, Adolph Hitler was merely the end-product of what had been championed by the Freemason Otto von Bismarck sixty years previously. Bismarck started a Kulturkampf against the Holy Faith. Hitler’s own quasi-religion, Nazism, was simply result of four hundred years of revolution against the Divine Plan to effect man’s return to Him through His Catholic Church, a revolution that was aided and abetted by Talmudists at every turn.

It is thus reprehensible that the conciliar revolutionaries still continue to invoke the “Shoah” in order to justify their false religious sect’s “new relationship with the faith of Israel,” which was described by the “restorer of Tradition,” Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, as follows in his infamous Christmas address to the conciliar curia on December 22, 2005:

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

No event of secular history can cause the Catholic Church to breathe new life into a false religion that is hated by God.

The events of World War II have been used by various adherents of the Talmud to demonstrate their deeply held belief that the spilling of Jewish blood is more horrible a crime than the spilling of the blood of others. Indeed, the Zionists in Israel have treated the Palestinians, who were thrown out of their own homes and had their property seized from them in 1948 and have been subjected to all manner of degrading conditions since that time, as the same sort of subhumans as the Jews and others, especially the Poles, were treated by the Nazis. The exploitation of the crimes of the Nazis during World War II has resulted in an endless effort to impose "guilt" on anyone and everyone who dares to proclaim the Holy Name of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in public, no less hold to everything that He has revealed to us in the Sacred Deposit of Faith and has entrusted to the infallible teaching authority of His Catholic Church for Its explication and eternal safekeeping.

Far from fulfilling Our Lord’s mission to the Apostles to seek the conversion of everyone in the whole world, the conciliar revolutionaries have sought to reaffirm adherents of false religions in paths that can lead them only eternal perdition, not eternal salvation.

The next part of “A Journey of Hope” deals for the umpteenth gazillion time with the “necessity” of “dialogue” with Talmudists by treating Judaism as a perfectly valid religion despite its having been superseded as documented above:

The Distinctive Character of Dialogue with the Jewish People

10. Both modern Judaism and contemporary Christianity are based on the Word revealed in the Old Testament and trace their roots to the Judaism of Jesus’ time. Following the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 A.D., Judaism gradually evolved primarily into Rabbinic Judaism, while early Christianity developed from the movement initiated by Jesus and his disciples, distinguishing itself from the various forms of Judaism over time. With Jesus, who was himself a Jew, the first Christians effectively adopted the principles of Judaism as they existed at the time and adapted them to the new post-Paschal situation. Accordingly, Nostra Aetate states: “Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues.”[16] This rich shared heritage is a solid foundation and a true treasure for Jewish-Christian dialogue.

11. Yet what Jesus brought into Christianity, as a Jewish inheritance, forms part of the theological structure of Christianity itself. In the section entitled “Fundamental Themes in the Scriptures of the Jewish People and Their Reception in Faith in Christ” (pars. 19–65), the document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible (24 May 2001), refers to the principal scriptural aspects and to their interpretation. It is a document of great value.

12. Indeed, both Jews and Christians share the conviction that the God of Israel revealed himself in his Word, thereby addressing human beings. Likewise common to Judaism and Christianity are the beliefs that God, as Creator of heaven and earth, created the living space in which people dwell, and that he surrounds and preserves it; that the human person, as the “image of God” (cf. Gen 1:26–27), has been entrusted with its stewardship and must therefore assume proper responsibility toward creation; and that each person is responsible for the well-being of his or her brothers and sisters, especially the poor.[17] Every ethical teaching regarding the proper relationship of the human person with God, with the surrounding world, and with one’s neighbor has its origin in God and in the dignity of every person derived from being created in the “image of God.” Like Rabbinic Judaism, Christianity has also embraced the Ten Commandments; they have likewise become a moral patrimony recognized by many people. Jesus’ twofold commandment of love—namely, to love God with all one’s heart, with all one’s soul, with all one’s mind, and with all one’s strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself (cf. Mk 12:30–31; Mt 22:37–39; Lk 10:27)—is drawn from the Old Testament (cf. Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18), even though the two commandments are not explicitly linked there. For this reason, Pope Benedict XVI regarded the Jewish people as our “fathers in faith,”[18] and emphasized that dialogue between the two faiths must begin with the gratitude of Christians toward the Jewish people, because, despite the difficulties they have endured, they have preserved faith in the one God. Accordingly, the then-Cardinal Ratzinger could affirm that “such a dialogue, to be fruitful, must begin with a prayer to our God that he may above all grant to us Christians greater esteem and love for this people, the people of Israel.”[19]

13. Bearing in mind this rich spiritual heritage shared by Jews and Christians, it is easy to understand that Jewish-Christian dialogue cannot be regarded as a secondary activity for Christians, aimed only at gaining a better understanding of Judaism, fostering diplomatic relations, or even simply cultivating friendship with the Jewish people. Rather, it is a matter of becoming fully aware of one’s own original identity. God’s covenant with the Jewish people is irrevocable[20], and this continually challenges the Church. This does not mean, for Christians, that there are two paths to salvation[21] or that the covenant with the Jewish people runs parallel to the Christian way of salvation: the Church teaches that Christ is the one and only Redeemer.[22] Nevertheless, this irrevocable covenant has theological significance. The more Christians come to know and love the Jewish roots of their own tradition, the better they understand themselves in the practice of faith, and the stronger their religious identity becomes—even though, for this to happen, Christians must know their own faith tradition well and be firmly rooted in it. When, with reference to Judaism, we affirm that we cannot do without one another, this also implies that the religious life of contemporary Jews, and not only that linked to the Old Testament, is relevant to Christians. Pope Francis affirmed this as follows: “God continues to work among the people of the Old Covenant.”[23] Indeed, Jewish religious life can be regarded as an effect of the revealed Word, always living and effective, which they have received; for this reason, it has a present and dynamic value that can always enrich us (cf. Rom 11:29). It is, therefore, of fundamental importance to deepen the biblical, exegetical, liturgical, and theological understanding of the relationship with Judaism, in accordance with the principles outlined in the conciliar Constitutions Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium.

14. This solidarity with the Jewish people also includes the shared struggle against antisemitism. Nostra Aetate already states unequivocally that the Church “decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone,”[24] thereby reaffirming—and at the same time advancing beyond—what had already been declared by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office on 25 March 1928.[25] Antisemitism has manifested itself in cruel ways throughout history, even in our own time, but its darkest moment was undoubtedly the Shoah. In this regard, the words of Pope Benedict XVI during the General Audience of 28 January 2009—which occurred the day after the annual Holocaust Remembrance Day—remain very precise and powerful: “In these days when we remember the Shoah, images come to mind from my repeated visits to Auschwitz, one of the concentration camps in which the heinous slaughter of millions of Jews occurred, innocent victims of a blind racial and religious hatred. As I affectionately renew the expression of my full and unquestionable solidarity with our fellow receivers of the First Covenant, I hope that the memory of the Shoah will lead humanity to reflect upon the unfathomable power of evil when it conquers the heart of man. May the Shoah be a warning for all against forgetfulness, denial, or reductionism, because violence committed against one single human being is violence against all. No man is an island, as a famous poet wrote. May the Shoah teach both old and new generations that only the arduous path of listening and dialogue, of love and forgiveness, leads peoples, cultures and religions of the world to the desired goal of fraternity and peace in truth. May violence no longer degrade the dignity of man!”[26]

15. The conflicts that have erupted in the Middle East in recent years have also left their mark on Jewish-Christian dialogue. Many channels of communication have been strained and continue to be tested by differing interpretations of the events that have unfolded, interpretations that are often not unanimous even within the respective religious communities. Nevertheless, the pillars of dialogue among believers, built over sixty years of common effort, have remained firm. Upon these foundations, it is both possible and necessary to continue building, once again drawing inspiration from the Council Fathers’ recommendations to grow in mutual knowledge and esteem “ above all through biblical and theological studies and through fraternal dialogue.”[27] (Note. A Journey of Hope. Sixty Years of Interreligious Dialogue and Fraternity in the Light of the Conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate, 16 September 2026.)

Where in the history of the Catholic Church prior to 1958 can you find any evidence whatsoever that the mandate given by Our Lord to the Eleven on Ascension Thursday to seek to convert all men at all times until His Second Coming in glory must be replaced by the madness of “dialogue” and “encounter”?

It was during Karol Joszef Wojtyla/John Paul II’s twenty-six and one-half year reign as the fourth in the current line of antipopes that his hand chosen prefect of the so-called Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Joseph Alois “Cardinal” Ratzinger, made the following statements with his (Wojtyla/John Paul II’s) full approval and consent:

“It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ.  And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Jesus.  Jesus brings a new meaning to these texts – yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance.  There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said.  And there are also good reasons for referring it to him – that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.” (Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, God and the World, p. 209.)

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

“It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ.  And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Jesus.  Jesus brings a new meaning to these texts – yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance.  There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said.  And there are also good reasons for referring it to him – that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.” (Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, God and the World, p. 209.)

This is such rank apostasy that it is amazing that there are still those who pine for the supposedly “restorer of tradition” who was simply a more urbane and literate heretic than his vulgar, profane successor, Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

It was “Pope Benedict XVI” that Joseph Alois Ratzinger sought to fulfill Roncalli’s desire to unit and not divide that he said the following to Talmudists:

To the religious leaders present this afternoon, I wish to say that the particular contribution of religions to the quest for peace lies primarily in the wholehearted, united search for God.  Ours is the task of proclaiming and witnessing that the Almighty is present and knowable even when he seems hidden from our sight, that he acts in our world for our good, and that a society’s future is marked with hope when it resonates in harmony with his divine order.  It is God’s dynamic presence that draws hearts together and ensures unity.  In fact, the ultimate foundation of unity among persons lies in the perfect oneness and universality of God, who created man and woman in his image and likeness in order to draw us into his own divine life so that all may be one. ("Pope" Benedict XVI, Courtesy visit to the President of the State of Israel at the presidential palace in Jerusalem, May 11, 2009.)

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

Courtesy of the late Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who strutted around the world as “Pope Francis” between March 13, 2013, and April 21, 2025, “Saint John Paul II’s” “teaching” that the Old Covenant had never been repealed, part of what Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI called on December 22, 2005, “new way of thinking about the faith of Israel,” is now part of the official teaching of the counterfeit church of conciliarism:

247. We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked, for “the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29). The Church, which shares with Jews an important part of the sacred Scriptures, looks upon the people of the covenant and their faith as one of the sacred roots of her own Christian identity (cf. Rom 11:16-18). As Christians, we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion; nor do we include the Jews among those called to turn from idols and to serve the true God (cf. 1 Thes 1:9). With them, we believe in the one God who acts in history, and with them we accept his revealed word.

248. Dialogue and friendship with the children of Israel are part of the life of Jesus’ disciples. The friendship which has grown between us makes us bitterly and sincerely regret the terrible persecutions which they have endured, and continue to endure, especially those that have involved Christians.

249. God continues to work among the people of the Old Covenant and to bring forth treasures of wisdom which flow from their encounter with his word. For this reason, the Church also is enriched when she receives the values of Judaism. While it is true that certain Christian beliefs are unacceptable to Judaism, and that the Church cannot refrain from proclaiming Jesus as Lord and Messiah, there exists as well a rich complementarity which allows us to read the texts of the Hebrew Scriptures together and to help one another to mine the riches of God’s word. We can also share many ethical convictions and a common concern for justice and the development of peoples. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013.)

Heresy is heresy, and the Catholic Church can never spotted by anything approaching heresy, no less be headed by a true pope who inserts such a heretical statement in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ sought to convert Saul, the fire-breathing Jewish hater of His own Most Holy Name who presided over the stoning of Saint Stephen the Protomartyr. The conciliar “popes” believe that it is “proselytizing” for Catholics to do now what Our Lord Himself did with Saint Paul the Apostle as He effected His conversion to become the Apostle to the Gentiles.

There is no further need to provide all the documentation of how the conciliar “popes” have appeased Talmudists in the sixty-one years since the issuance of  Nostra Aetate on October 28, 1965. Their wretched record speaks for itself.

Insofar as “other religions” are concerned, I want to make short work of “A Journey of Hope’s” falsehoods after providing you with the following excerpt from its text:

Pope Leo XIV

33.  In his first address to the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy See in 2025, Pope Leo XIV recalled the three key words that must accompany every form of dialogue: peace, justice, and truth.[66] Then, later that same year, following in the footsteps of his predecessors, the Holy Father commemorated the sixtieth anniversary of Nostra Aetate, affirming that, through this conciliar document, “a seed of hope for interreligious dialogue was planted.”[67] The Pontiff also recalled that there have been martyrs of dialogue who gave their lives in opposing violence and hatred.[68] Furthermore, he emphasized that “we can lead our people to become prophets of our time — voices that denounce violence and injustice, heal division, and proclaim peace for all our brothers and sisters.”[69] At the General Audience of 29 October 2025, dedicated to Nostra Aetate, the Holy Father reaffirmed: “This luminous Document teaches us to meet the followers of other religions not as outsiders, but as travelling companions on the path of truth; to honor differences, affirming our common humanity; and to discern, in every sincere religious search, a reflection of the one divine Mystery that embraces all creation.”[70]

34. In his first address to representatives of other Churches and ecclesial communities and of other religions, on 19 May 2025, Pope Leo XIV summarized the core of Jewish-Christian dialogue and also underscored the importance of theological dialogue: “Because of the Jewish roots of Christianity, all Christians have a special relationship with Judaism. The conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate (par. 4) emphasizes the greatness of the spiritual heritage shared by Christians and Jews, encouraging mutual knowledge and esteem. The theological dialogue between Christians and Jews remains ever important and close to my heart. Even in these difficult times, marked by conflicts and misunderstandings, it is necessary to continue the momentum of this precious dialogue of ours.”[71] Christians and Jews, unable to do without one another, should continue to walk this path together until the end of time on earth. Together, they should await that day “known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and ‘serve him shoulder to shoulder’ (Zeph 3:9).”[72]

35. The theme of dialogue with the various religions, to be promoted and cultivated, is also clearly reaffirmed in the Joint Declaration with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of 29 November 2025: “We reject any use of religion and the name of God to justify violence. We believe that authentic interreligious dialogue, far from being a cause of syncretism and confusion, is essential for the coexistence of peoples of different traditions and cultures. Mindful of the 60th anniversary of the Declaration Nostra Aetate, we exhort all men and women of good will to work together to build a more just and supportive world, and to care for creation, which is entrusted to us by God. Only in this way can the human family overcome indifference, desire for domination, greed for profit, and xenophobia.”[73]Seen in this light, the dialogue that unfolds in the wake of Nostra Aetate is not merely a theoretical exercise but a shared ethical and spiritual commitment, directed toward peace, justice, and the care of our common home. (Note. A Journey of Hope. Sixty Years of Interreligious Dialogue and Fraternity in the Light of the Conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate, 16 September 2026.)

There is no need to rewrite or (copy and paste) past commentaries dealing with each of the conciliar “popes” and the respect they have shown to pagan religions.

What might be useful to do, though, is to reminds readers of how our true saints have dealt with pagan religions and the praise they received from true popes for doing so.

We turn to Pope Saint Gregory the Great’s praise of Saint Benedict of Nursia for the founder of Western monasticism’s destruction of the Temple of Apollo on Monte Cassino, an act of fidelity to the Most Blessed Trinity, Who is a jealous God who has commanded us not to worship strange gods, that was praised as well by Pope Pius XII:

The castle called Cassino is situated upon the side of a high mountain which riseth in the air about three miles so that it seemed to touch the very heavens. On Monte Cassino stood an old temple where Apollo was worshiped by the foolish country people, according to the custom of the ancient heathen. Round about it, likewise grew groves, in which even until that time, the mad multitude of infidels offered their idolatrous sacrifices. The man of God, coming to that place, broke down the idol, overthrew the altar, burnt the groves and of the temple made a chapel of St. Martin; and where the profane altar had stood, he built a chapel of St. John and, by continual preaching converted many of the people thereabout.

But the old enemy, not bearing this silently, did present himself in the sight of the Father and with great cries complained of the violence he suffered, in so much that the brethren heard him, though they could see nothing. For, as the venerable Father told his disciples, the wicked fiend represented himself to his sight all on fire and, with flaming mouth and flashing eyes, seemed to rage against him. And they they all heard what he said, for first he called him by name, and when the make of God would make no answer, he fell to reviling him. And whereas before he cried, "Benedict, Benedict," and saw he could get no answer, then he cried, "Maledict, not Benedict, what hast thou to do with me, and why dost thou persecute me?" (Pope Saint Gregory the Great, The Life of Saint Benedict, republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1995, pp. 24-25.)

Then it was that this holy man saw that the time, ordained by God's providence, had come for him to found a family of religious men and to mold them to the perfection of the Gospels. He began under most favorable auspices. "For in those parts he had gathered together a great many in the service of God, so that by the assistance of Our Lord Jesus Christ he built there 12 monasteries, in each of which he put 12 monks with their Superiors, and retained a few with himself whom he thought to instruct further".

But while things started very favorably, as We said, and yielded rich and salutary results, promising still greater in the future, Our saint with the greatest grief of soul, saw a storm breaking over the growing harvest, which an envious spirit had provoked and desires of earthly gain had stirred up. Since Benedict was prompted by divine and not human counsel, and feared lest the envy which had been aroused mainly against himself should wrongfully recoil on his followers, "he let envy take its course, and after he had disposed of the oratories and other buildings -- leaving in them a competent number of brethren with superiors -- he took with him a few monks and went to another place". Trusting in God and relying on His ever present help, he went south and arrived at a fort "called Cassino situated on the side of a high mountain . . .; on this stood an old temple where Apollo was worshipped by the foolish country people, according to the custom of the ancient heathens. Around it likewise grew groves, in which even till that time the mad multitude of infidels used to offer their idolatrous sacrifices. The man of God coming to that place broke the idol, overthrew the altar, burned the groves, and of the temple of Apollo made a chapel of St. Martin. Where the profane altar had stood he built a chapel of St. John; and by continual preaching he converted many of the people thereabout".

Cassino, as all know, was the chief dwelling place and the main theater of the Holy Patriarch's virtue and sanctity. From the summit of this mountain, while practically on all sides ignorance and the darkness of vice kept trying to overshadow and envelop everything, a new light shone, kindled by the teaching and civilization of old and further enriched by the precepts of Christianity; it illumined the wandering peoples and nations, recalled them to truth and directed them along the right path. Thus indeed it may be rightly asserted that the holy monastery built there was a haven and shelter of highest learning and of all the virtues, and in those very troubled times was, "as it were, a pillar of the Church and a bulwark of the faith". (Pope Pius XII, Fulgens Radiatur, March 21, 1947.)

Pope Pius XII also praised how the Apostle to Germany, Saint Boniface, mocked a tree worshipped by the pagans by chopping it down, something that would be called an act of “intolerance” and a violation of “human dignity” today by the lords of conciliarism:

When by the grace and favor of God this very important task was done, Boniface did not allow himself his well-earned rest. In spite of the fact that he was already burdened by so many cares, and was feeling now his advanced age and realizing that his health was almost broken by so many labors, he prepared himself eagerly for a new and no less difficult enterprise. He turned his attention again to Friesland, that Friesland which had been the first goal of his apostolic travels, where he had later on labored so much. Especially in the northern regions this land was still enveloped in the darkness of pagan error. Zeal that was still youthful led him there to bring forth new sons to Jesus Christ and to bring Christian civilization to new peoples. For he earnestly desired “that in leaving this world he might receive his reward there where he had first begun his preaching and entered upon his meritorious career.” Feeling that his mortal life was drawing to a close, he confided his presentiment to his dear disciple, Bishop Lullus, and asserted that he did not want to await death in idleness. “I yearn to finish the road before me; I cannot call myself back from the path I have chosen. Now the day and hour of my death is at hand. For now I leave the prison of the body and go to my eternal reward. My dear son, . . . insist in turning the people from the paths of error, finish the construction of the basilica already begun at Fulda and there bring my body which has aged with the passage of many years.

When he and his little band had taken departure from the others, “he traveled through all Friesland, ceaselessly preaching the word of God, banishing pagan rites and extirpating immoral heathen customs. With tremendous energy he built churches and overthrew the idols of the temples. He baptized thousands of men, women and children.” After he had arrived in the northern regions of Friesland and was about to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation to a large number of newly baptized converts, a furious mob of pagans suddenly attacked and threatened to kill them with deadly spears and swords. Then the holy prelate serenely advanced and “forbade his followers to resist, saying, ‘Cease fighting, my children, for we are truly taught by Scripture not to return evil for evil, but rather good. The day we have long desired is now at hand; the hour of our death has come of its own accord. Take strength in the Lord, . . . be courageous and do not be afraid of those who kill the body, for they cannot slay an immortal soul. Rejoice in the Lord, fix the anchor of hope in God, Who will immediately give you an eternal reward and a place in the heavenly court with the angelic choirs’.” All were encouraged by these words to embrace martyrdom. They prayed and turned their eyes and hearts to heaven where they hoped to receive soon an eternal reward, and then fell beneath the onslaught of their enemies, who stained with blood the bodies of those who fell in the happy combat of the saints.” At the moment of this martyrdom, Boniface, who was to be beheaded by the sword, “placed the sacred book of the Gospels upon his head as the sword threatened, that he might receive the deadly stroke under it and claim its protection in death, whose reading he loved in life. (Pope Pius XII, Ecclesiae Fastos, June 5, 1954.)

An apostate son of Germany, one who is the very antithesis of the spirit of Saint Boniface, wrote the following about those who destroyed pagan temples:

In the relationship with paganism quite different and varied developments took place. The mission as a whole was not consistent. There were in fact Christian hotheads and fanatics who destroyed temples, who were unable to see paganism as anything other than idolatry that had to be radically eliminated. People saw points in common with philosophy, but not in pagan religion, which was seen as corrupt. (Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World, p. 373.)

Was Saint Boniface guilty of being one of these “Christian hotheads and fanatics who destroyed temples,” men “who were unable to see paganism as anything other than idolatry that had to be radically eliminated”? Ratzinger/Benedict not only blasphemed God as he denied the nature of dogmatic truth and esteemed the symbols and the “values” of false religions. He blasphemed the work and the memory of the very saint who evangelized his own German ancestors, the man who is the very patron saint of Germany, his homeland.

Catholicism or conciliarism. It’s one or the other. There is no middle ground. The Catholic Church cannot produce men in her official capacities who speak these things so promiscuously and without any word of correction for the sake of the honor and glory and majesty of God and for the good of the souls for whom Our Lord shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross.

Catholicism or conciliarism. It’s one or the other. There is no middle ground.

Saint Boniface knew that there was no middle ground between Catholicism and any false religion. He knew that he had to evangelize the non-Catholics to whom he had been sent without engaging in what Pope Pius XI referred to in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928, as obstinate wranglings with unbelievers.

Pope Pius XII described the great missionary zeal of Saint Boniface in the aforementioned Ecclesiae Fastos:

Winfred, afterwards named Boniface by Pope St. Gregory II, was undoubtedly outstanding among the missionaries for his apostolic zeal and fortitude of soul, combined with gentleness of manner. Together with a small but courageous band of companions, he began that work of evangelization to which he had so long looked forward, setting sail from Britain and landing in Friesland. However, the tyrant who ruled that country vehemently opposed the Christian religion, so that the attempt of Boniface and his companions failed, and after fruitless labors and vain efforts they were obliged to return home.

Nevertheless he was not discouraged. He determined, after a short while, to go to Rome and visit the Apostolic See. There he would humbly ask the Vicar of Jesus Christ himself for a sacred mandate. Fortified with this and by the grace of God he would more readily attain the difficult goal of his most ardent desires. “He came, therefore, without mishap to the home of the Blessed Apostle Peter,” and having venerated with great piety the tomb of the Prince of the Apostles, begged for an audience with Our predecessor of holy memory, Gregory II.

He was willingly received by the Pontiff, to whom “he related in detail the occasion of his journey and visit, and manifested the desire which for long had been consuming him. The Holy Pope immediately smiled benignly on him,“encouraged him to confidence in this praiseworthy enterprise, and armed him with apostolic letters and authority.

The receiving of a mandate from the Vicar of Jesus Christ was to Boniface a mark of the divine assistance. Relying on this he feared no difficulties from men or circumstances; and now with the prospect of happier results he hoped to carry out his long cherished design. He traversed various parts of Germany and Friesland. Wherever there were no traces of Christianity, but all was wild and savage, he generously scattered the Gospel seed, and labored and toiled that it might fructify wherever he found Christian communities utterly abandoned for want of a lawful pastor, or being driven by corrupt and ignorant churchmen far from the path of genuine faith and good life, he became the reformer of public and private morality, prudent and keen, skilful and tireless, stirring up and inciting all to virtue.

The success of the apostle was reported to Our predecessor already mentioned, who called him to Rome, and despite the protest of his modesty, “intimated his desire to raise him to the Episcopate, in order that he could with greater firmness correct the erring and bring them back to the way of truth, the greater the authority of his apostolic rank; and would be more acceptable to all in his office of preaching, the more evident it should be that he had been ordained to it by his apostolic superior.”

Therefore he was consecrated “regional bishop” by the Sovereign Pontiff himself, and having returned to the vast territories of his jurisdiction, with the authority which his new office conferred on him, devoted himself with increased earnestness to his apostolic labor.

Just as Boniface was dear to St. Gregory II for the eminence of his virtue and his burning zeal for the spread of Christ’s kingdom, he was likewise to his successors: namely, to Pope St. Gregory III, who, for his conspicuous merits, named him archbishop and honored him with the sacred pallium, giving him the power to establish lawfully or reform the ecclesiastical hierarchy in this territory, and to consecrate new bishops “in order to bring the light of Faith to Germany;” to Pope St. Zachary also, who in an affectionate letter confirmed his office and warmly praised him; finally, to Pope Stephen II, to which Pontiff shortly after his election, when already coming to the end of his life’s span, he wrote a letter full of reverence.

Backed by the authority and support of these Pontiffs, throughout the period of his apostolate Boniface traversed immense regions with ever-growing zeal, shedding the Gospel’s light on lands until then steeped in darkness and error; with untiring effort he brought a new era of Christian civilization to Friesland, Saxony, Austrasia, Thuringia, Franconia, Hesse, Bavaria. All these lands, he tirelessly cultivated and brought forth to that new life which comes from Christ and is fed by His grace. He was also eager to reach “old Saxony,” which he looked on as the birthplace of his ancestors; however, this hope he was unable to realize.

To begin and carry out successfully this tremendous undertaking, he earnestly called for companions from the Benedictine monasteries in his own land, then flourishing in learning, faith and charity, — for monks and nuns too, among whom Lioba was an outstanding example of evangelical perfection. They readily answered his call, and gave him precious help in his mission. And in those same lands there were not wanting those who, once the light of the Gospel had reached them, eagerly embraced the faith, and then strove mightily to bring it to all whom they could reach. Thus were those regions gradually transformed after Boniface, supported, as we have said, by the authority of the Roman Pontiffs, undertook the task; “like a new archimandrite he began everywhere to plant the divine seed and root Out the cockle, to build monasteries and churches, and to put worthy shepherds in charge of them.” Men and women flocked to hear him preach, and hearing him were touched by grace; they abandoned their ancient superstitions, and were set afire with love for the Redeemer; by contact with his teaching their rude and corrupt manners were changed; cleansed by the waters of baptism, they entered an entirely new way of life. Here were erected monasteries for monks and nuns, which were centers not only of religion, but also of Christian civilization, of literature, of liberal arts; there dark and unknown and impenetrable forests were cleared, or completely cut down, and new lands put to cultivation for the benefit of all; in various places dwellings were built, which in the course of centuries would grow to be populous cities.

Thus the untamed Germanic tribes, so jealous of their freedom that they would submit to no one, undismayed even by the mighty weight of Roman arms, and never remaining for long under their sway, once they were visited by the unarmed heralds of the Gospel, docilely yielded to them; they were drawn, stirred and finally penetrated by the beauty and truth of the new doctrine, and at last, embracing the sweet yoke of Jesus Christ, willingly surrendered to Him.

Through the activity of St. Boniface, what was certainly a new era dawned for the German people; new not only for the Christian religion, but also for Christian civilization. Consequently this nation should rightly consider and regard him as their father, to whom they should be ever grateful and whose outstanding virtues they should zealously imitate. “For it is not only almighty God Who is called Father in the spiritual order, but also all those whose teaching and example lead us to the truth and encourage us to be strong in our religion. . .Thus the holy bishop Boniface can be called the father of all Germans, since he was the first to bring them forth in Christ by his holy preaching and to strengthen them by the example of his virtue, then finally to lay down his life for them, greater love than which no man can show.“

Among the various monasteries (and he had many built in those regions) the monastery of Fulda certainly holds first place; to the people it was as a beacon which with its beaming light shows ships the way through the waves of the sea. Here was founded as it were a new city of God, in which, generation after generation, innumerable monks were carefully and diligently instructed in human and divine learning, prepared by prayer and contemplation for their future peaceful battles, and finally sent forth like swarms of bees after they had drawn the honey of wisdom from their sacred and profane books, to impart generously that sweetness far and wide to others. Here none of the sciences of liberal arts were unknown. Ancient manuscripts were eagerly collected, carefully copied, brilliantly illuminated in color, and explained with careful commentaries. Thus it can justly be maintained that the sacred and profane studies Germany so excels in today had their venerable origins here.

What is more, innumerable Benedictines went forth from these monastic walls and with cross and plow, by prayer, that is, and labor, brought the light of Christian civilization to those lands as yet wrapped in darkness. By their long untiring labors, the forests, once the vast domain of wild beasts, almost inaccessible to man, were turned into fruitful land and cultivated fields; and what had been up to that time separate, scattered tribes of rough barbarous customs became in the course of time a nation, tamed by the gentle power of the Gospel and outstanding for its Christianity and civilization. (Pope Pius XII, Ecclesiae Fastos, June 5, 1954.)

Pope Benedict XV wrote a much briefer encyclical letter about Saint Boniface in which he, Pope Benedict XV, emphasized the Apostle of Germany’s unwavering devotion to the Holy See and to Papal Primacy:

9. Right from the beginning of his mission, he communicated with the Holy See via letters and messengers. In this way “he made known to the venerable apostolic father everything which the grace of God accomplished by his means,” and he “sought advice for the Holy See in matters which concerned the daily needs of the Church of God and of the people’s welfare.”[6]

10. Boniface was outstanding in his unique sense of devotion. When he was an old man he revealed this quality to Pope Zachary in a letter: “With the consent and by the order of Pope Gregory, I bound myself by a vow to live in intimate relationship with and at the service of the Apostolic See almost thirty years ago. I would always let the pope know both my joys and my sorrows. This way we could praise God together in happiness, and I could receive the strength of his advice in times of sadness.”[7]

11. We find here and there pairs of documents which attest to the uninterrupted exchange of letters and the remarkable agreement of wills between this valiant preacher and the Holy See, an agreement continued by four successive popes. The popes always helped and favored him. Boniface, on his part, neglected nothing, and abandoned none of his zeal nor efforts to fulfill the mission he received from the popes he venerated and loved as a son.

12. Pope Gregory, noting Boniface’s achievements, decided to confer the highest rank of the priesthood on him and to elevate him to the episcopacy of the whole province of Germany. Boniface, who had earlier resisted this honor from his dear friend Willibald “accepted and obeyed because he did not dare oppose the desire of such a great pope.”‘[8] The pope added to this great honor another special favor worthy of note to German posterity when he awarded the friendship of the Holy See to Boniface and to all his subjects forever. Gregory had already given proof of this friendship when he wrote to kings, to princes, to bishops, to abbots, to all the clergy, and to the people, whether they were barbarians or recent converts. He invited them “to give their approval and their co-operation to such a great servant of God, sent by the Catholic and Apostolic Church to enlighten the nations.”[9]

13. This special friendship between Boniface and the Holy See was confirmed by the next pope, Gregory III, when Boniface sent messengers to him on the occasion of his election. “The messengers demonstrated to the new pope the pact of friendship between his predecessor and Boniface and his companions” and “the messengers assured him that he could depend on his humble servant in the future.” Finally, they asked “just as they had been instructed, that the pope’s subject might again benefit from friendship and union with the holy pope and the Apostolic See.”[10] The pope received the messengers favorably and gave them new honors for Boniface, among them “the pallium of the archiepiscopate. Then he sent them back to their own country laden with gifts and relics of saints.”

14. We can hardly recount “the gratitude of this apostle for these signs of affection nor express the comfort which the pope’s esteem brought him. Inspired by the power of divine mercy”[11] the saintly man received the strength and the heart to undertake the greatest and most difficult things: to build new churches, hospitals, monasteries, and strongholds; to travel to new countries preaching the gospel; to establish new dioceses and to reform old ones, removing the vices, the schisms, and the errors; to sow everywhere true dogma and virtues, the seeds of Christian faith and life; and even to civilize barbaric peoples made savage by inhumanity. This he achieved by using pious disciples and many persons summoned from England.

15. Although already ennobled by remarkable and holy works, and despite attacks, misfortunes, worries, and advancing age, he did not give way to pride nor to the love of leisure. He always kept in mind his mission and the orders of the pope. Thus, “because of his intimate union with the pope and all the clergy, he came to Rome a third time in the company of his disciples to speak with the Apostolic Father and to recommend himself to the prayers of the saints because he was already advanced in years.”[12] Again this time the pope received him graciously and again “showered him with gifts and relics of the saints.” The pope also gave him precious and important letters of recommendation some of which have come down to us.

The two Gregories were succeeded by Zachary, heir to their pontificates and to their concern for the Germans and their apostle. Not content to renew the ancient union, he increased it by showing more confidence and good will toward Boniface. Boniface acted the same way toward Zachary, as the number of messengers and of friendly letters which were exchanged show us. Among other things, which would be too lengthy to recall, the pope addressed his representative in these friendly terms: “Beloved brother, know that we cherish you to the point of wanting to have you with us every day, to be our associate, as a minister of God, and steward of the Churches of Christ.[13] It was therefore appropriate that the apostle of Germany wrote a few years before his death to Pope Stephen, Zachary’s successor: “The disciple of the Roman Church resolutely asks from the bottom of his heart friendship and union with the Holy See.”[14]

17. Moved by a very strong faith and burning with love and piety, Boniface seems to have drawn his unique and faithful union to the Holy See first from the contemplative life of monasticism in his own country. Later, when he

was about to undertake the difficulties of the apostolic life, he promised this fidelity at Rome by an oath at the tomb of Saint Peter, prince of the apostles. He exhibited this fidelity in the midst of dangers and struggles as the mark of his apostleship and the rule of his mission. He never relented from recommending this fidelity to all those for whom he was a father in Christ. In fact, he was so diligent that it seemed he desired to leave it to them as an inheritance.

18. Thus, advanced in years and worn out by his work, he spoke of himself very humbly: “I am the least and the worst of the representatives which the Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church sent to preach the Gospel.Ó[15] But he held this Roman mission in high esteem and he enjoyed calling himself “the German representative of the Holy Roman Church.” He wanted to be the devoted servant of the popes, and their humble and obedient disciple.

19. He fixed deeply in his mind and scrupulously observed what the martyr Cyprian, the witness of the ancient tradition of the Church, affirmed: “there is one God and one Christ; There is one Church and one founded on Peter by the word of the Lord.”[16] That is what the great Doctor of the Church Ambrose also preached: “Where Peter is, there is the Church. Where the Church is, there is no death but life eternal.”[17] Finally Jerome very wisely taught: “The welfare of the Church depends on the dignity of the papacy. If we do not give the pope sovereign and independent power, there will be as many schisms in the Church as there are priests.”[18]

20. The tragic history of old discords proves this to us. The evils which came from them confirms it. It is of little benefit to recall those evils at the present time when we are burdened with new disasters and bloody massacres. We should deplore them all and leave them in eternal oblivion if possible.

21. Rather let us celebrate the ancient unity which bound Boniface, the first apostle of Germany, and the Germans themselves to the Holy See. His mission was the source of faith, of prosperity, and of civilization for the Germans. We could recall many other worthwhile details; but we have said enough-maybe even too much-for it is so well-known that a long speech filled with proof is not necessary. We enjoyed sharing these old memories with you in order to gather consolation to bear the present more courageously. We are strengthened by the hope of future unity and of attachment to the Church in “the fullness of peace and the bounds of charity.”

22. It is pleasant for us to recall the examples and the remarkable virtues of Boniface, and especially the friendship and unity which we wanted to celebrate in this letter. Yes, he lives among you; indeed he lives in glory. He lives as “the representative of the Roman Catholic Church for Germany.” He still performs his mission by his prayers, his example, and the memory of his works by which “he who is dead still speaks.” He as a faithful prophet and herald of Our Lord and Savior Jesus, seems to exhort and invite his people to unity with the Roman Church. Christ himself beseeches his people “to be one.” (Pope Benedict XV, In Hac Tanta, March 19, 1919.)

Pope Benedict XV thus used Saint Boniface to gently remind Protestants that the Apostle of Germany was entirely devoted to the papacy, which is why it is worth repeating two of the paragraphs quoted above:

18. Thus, advanced in years and worn out by his work, he spoke of himself very humbly: “I am the least and the worst of the representatives which the Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church sent to preach the Gospel. But he held this Roman mission in high esteem and he enjoyed calling himself “the German representative of the Holy Roman Church.” He wanted to be the devoted servant of the popes, and their humble and obedient disciple.

19. He fixed deeply in his mind and scrupulously observed what the martyr Cyprian, the witness of the ancient tradition of the Church, affirmed: “there is one God and one Christ; There is one Church and one founded on Peter by the word of the Lord.” That is what the great Doctor of the Church Ambrose also preached: “Where Peter is, there is the Church. Where the Church is, there is no death but life eternal.” Finally Jerome very wisely taught: “The welfare of the Church depends on the dignity of the papacy. If we do not give the pope sovereign and independent power, there will be as many schisms in the Church as there are priests.”  (Pope Benedict XV, In Hac Tanta, March 14, 1919.)

Pope Benedict XV thus called Protestants to “unity with the Roman church" so as to be one with Our Lord and, at the same time, he put the lie to the contention made by the late German “new theologian, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, the papacy had been exercised “differently” in the First Millennium than in the Second. It is impossible to reconcile what Pope Benedict XV wrote in Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)

16. Every Christian should shun books and journals which distill the poison of impiety and which stir up the fire of unrestrained desires or sensual passions. Groups and reading clubs where the masonic spirit stalks its prey should be likewise shunned. (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)

This is one of the best proofs that the counterfeit church of conciliarism cannot be the Catholic Church as it has made its peace with the precepts of the revolution and have indeed sought to “reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the State without God.”

Pope Saint Pius X explained this as follows in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:

This being said, what must be thought of the promiscuity in which young Catholics will be caught up with heterodox and unbelieving folk in a work of this nature? Is it not a thousand-fold more dangerous for them than a neutral association? What are we to think of this appeal to all the heterodox, and to all the unbelievers, to prove the excellence of their convictions in the social sphere in a sort of apologetic contest? Has not this contest lasted for nineteen centuries in conditions less dangerous for the faith of Catholics? And was it not all to the credit of the Catholic Church? What are we to think of this respect for all errors, and of this strange invitation made by a Catholic to all the dissidents to strengthen their convictions through study so that they may have more and more abundant sources of fresh forces? What are we to think of an association in which all religions and even Free-Thought may express themselves openly and in complete freedom? For the Sillonists who, in public lectures and elsewhere, proudly proclaim their personal faith, certainly do not intend to silence others nor do they intend to prevent a Protestant from asserting his Protestantism, and the skeptic from affirming his skepticism. Finally, what are we to think of a Catholic who, on entering his study group, leaves his Catholicism outside the door so as not to alarm his comrades who, “dreaming of disinterested social action, are not inclined to make it serve the triumph of interests, coteries and even convictions whatever they may be”? Such is the profession of faith of the New Democratic Committee for Social Action which has taken over the main objective of the previous organization and which, they say, “breaking the double meaning which surround the Greater Sillon both in reactionary and anti-clerical circles”, is now open to all men “who respect moral and religious forces and who are convinced that no genuine social emancipation is possible without the leaven of generous idealism.”

Alas! yes, the double meaning has been broken: the social action of the Sillon is no longer Catholic. The Sillonist, as such, does not work for a coterie, and “the Church”, he says, “cannot in any sense benefit from the sympathies that his action may stimulate.” A strange situation, indeed! They fear lest the Church should profit for a selfish and interested end by the social action of the Sillon, as if everything that benefited the Church did not benefit the whole human race! A curious reversal of notions! The Church might benefit from social action! As if the greatest economists had not recognized and proved that it is social action alone which, if serious and fruitful, must benefit the Church! But stranger still, alarming and saddening at the same time, are the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, “the reign of love and justice” with workers coming from everywhere, of all religions and of no religion, with or without beliefs, so long as they forego what might divide them – their religious and philosophical convictions, and so long as they share what unites them – a “generous idealism and moral forces drawn from whence they can” When we consider the forces, knowledge, and supernatural virtues which are necessary to establish the Christian City, and the sufferings of millions of martyrs, and the light given by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and the self-sacrifice of all the heroes of charity, and a powerful hierarchy ordained in heaven, and the streams of Divine Grace – the whole having been built up, bound together, and impregnated by the life and spirit of Jesus Christ, the Wisdom of God, the Word made man – when we think, I say, of all this, it is frightening to behold new apostles eagerly attempting to do better by a common interchange of vague idealism and civic virtues. What are they going to produce? What is to come of this collaboration? A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity. It will be a tumultuous agitation, sterile for the end proposed, but which will benefit the less Utopian exploiters of the people. Yes, we can truly say that the Sillon, its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings Socialism in its train.

We fear that worse is to come: the end result of this developing promiscuousness, the beneficiary of this cosmopolitan social action, can only be a Democracy which will be neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish. It will be a religion (for Sillonism, so the leaders have said, is a religion) more universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men become brothers and comrades at last in the “Kingdom of God”. – “We do not work for the Church, we work for mankind.”

And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer.

We know only too well the dark workshops in which are elaborated these mischievous doctrines which ought not to seduce clear-thinking minds. The leaders of the Sillon have not been able to guard against these doctrines. The exaltation of their sentiments, the undiscriminating good-will of their hearts, their philosophical mysticism, mixed with a measure of illuminism, have carried them away towards another Gospel which they thought was the true Gospel of Our Savior. To such an extent that they speak of Our Lord Jesus Christ with a familiarity supremely disrespectful, and that – their ideal being akin to that of the Revolution – they fear not to draw between the Gospel and the Revolution blasphemous comparisons for which the excuse cannot be made that they are due to some confused and over-hasty composition.

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.)

This is all contrary to the false conciliar religion, which, among other things, is an expression of Sillonism’s reconciliation with the principles of the French Revolution and Judeo-Masonry, and for all of Prevost’s concern about “loving others” as Our Lord loves us, he ignores the fact that Our Lord’s love for us is an act of His Holy Will, the ultimate expression of which is the sanctification and salvation of the immortal souls as members of His Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can never be a truly just social order within nations nor a stable, enduring peace among them.

Perhaps a fitting way to close this commentary is to cite Dom Prosper Gueranger’s explication of the Gospel read at Holy Mass yesterday, the Seventeenth Sunday after Pentecost and the Commemoration of Saint Eustace and His Companions:

At that time: The Pharisees came to Jesus: and one of them, a doctor of the law, asking him, tempting him: Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law? Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.  And the Pharisees being gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying: What think you of Christ? whose son is he? They say to him: David’s. He saith to them: How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying: The Lord said to my Lord, Sit on my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word; neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

The Man-God allowed temptation to approach his sacred person in the desert; (Matthew 4:1-11) he disdained not to sustain the attacks which the devil’s spiteful cunning has, from the world’s first beginning, been suggesting to him as the surest means of working man’s perdition. Our Jesus permitted the demon thus to tempt him, in order that he might show his faithful servants how they are to repel the assaults of the wicket spirit. Today our adorable Master, who would be a model to his children in all their trials, (Hebrews 2:17-18; 4:15) is represented to us as having to content not with Satan’s perfidy, but with the hypocrisy of his bitterest enemies, the Pharisees. They seek to ensnare him in his speech, (Matthew 22:15) just as the representatives of the world, which he has condemned, (John 16:8-11) will do to his Church, and that in all ages, right to the end of time. But as her divine Spouse triumphed, so will she, for he will enable her to continue his work upon earth, and amidst the same temptations and the same snares. She is ever to come off with victory by maintaining a most inviolable fidelity to God’s law and truth. The tools of Satan, who are the heretics and the princes of this world, chafing at the restraint put by Christianity on their ambition and lust, will always be studying how best to outwit the guardian of the divine oracles, by their captious propositions or questions. When necessity requires her to speak, she is quite ready; for as Bride of that divine Word, who is his Father’s eternal and substantial utterance, what can she be but a voice, either announce him on earth, or sing him in heaven? That word of hers, endowed as it is with the power and penetration of God himself, will not only never be taken by surprise, but like a two-edged sword, it will generally go much deeper than the crafty questioners of the Church anticipated; it will not only refute their sophistry, it will also expose the hypocrisy and wickedness of their intentions. (Hebrews 4:12) By their sacrilegious attempts, they will have gained nothing but disgrace and shame, and the mortification of having occasioned a fresh luster to Truth by the new light in which it has been put, and of having procured a clearer knowledge of dogma or morals for the devoted children of the Church.

It was thus with the Pharisees of today’s Gospel. As the Homily upon it tells us, they wanted to see if Jesus, who had declared himself to be God, would not consequently make some addition to the commandment of divine love; and if he did, they would be justified in condemning him as having tried to change the letter of the law in its greatest commandment. (St Chrysostom, Homily 77 on Matthew) Our Lord disappoints them. He met their question by giving it a longer answer than they had asked for; that is, having first recited the text of the great commandment as given in the Scripture, he continued the quotation, and by so doing, showed them that he was not ignorant of the intention which had induced them to question him: he continued the quotation by reminding them of the second commandment, which is like unto the first—the commandment, that is, of love of the neighbor, and that condemned their intended crime of deicide. Thus were they convicted of loving neither their neighbor nor God himself, for the first commandment cannot be observed if the second, which flows from and completes it, be broken.

But our Lord does not stop there; he obliges them to acknowledge, at least implicitly, the divinity of the Messiah. He puts a question, in His turn, to them, and they answer it by saying, as they were obliged to do, that the Christ was to be of the family of David; but if he be his Son, how comes it that David calls himself his Lord, just as he calls God himself, as we have it in Psalm 109, where he celebrates the glories of the Messiah? The only possible explanation is that the Messiah, who in due time and as Man, was to be born of David’s house, was God, and Son of God, even before time existed, according to the same Psalm: From my womb, before the day-star, I begot thee. (Psalm 109:3) This answer would have condemned the Pharisees, so they refuse to give it; but their silence was an avowal; and before very long, the eternal Father’s vengeance upon these vile enemies of his Son will fulfill the prophecy of making them his footstool in blood and shame: that time is to be the terrible day when the justice of God will fall upon the deicide city.

Another Interjection:

Ah, here you have a very succinct refutation to Nostra Aetate and to everything else that has followed in its wake, including “A Journey of Hope.”

Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ gave His once Chosen People a thirty-seven year period of mercy from Pentecost Sunday to respond to the preaching of the Apostles, including to that of Saint Matthew himself, whose feast day this is, before He used the pagan Romans to destroy the city of Jerusalem as His just punishment for, as Dom Proper Gueranger noted, their crime of Deicide.

As Dom Prosper Gueranger went on to write:

Let us Christians, out of contempt for Satan, who stirred up the expiring Synagogue to thus lay snares for the Son of God—let us turn these efforts of hatred into an instruction which will warm up our love. The Jews, by rejecting Christ Jesus, sinned against both of the commandments which constitute charity, and embody the whole law; and we, on the contrary, by loving that same Jesus, fulfill the whole law. . . .

That same Apostle who says: The end of the law is charity, (1 Timothy 1:5) says also: The end of the law is Christ; (Romans 10:4) and we now see the harmony existing between these two distinct propositions. We understand also the connection there is between the word of the Gospel: On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets, and that other saying of our Lord: Search the Scriptures, for the same are they that give testimony of me. (John 5:39) The fullness of the law, which is the rule of men’s conduct, is in charity, (Romans 13:10) of which Christ is the end, just as the Object of the revealed Scriptures is no other than the Man-God, who embodies in his own adorable unity, for us his followers, all moral teaching and all dogma. He is our faith and our love, “the end of all our resolutions,” says St. Augustine; “for all our efforts tend but to this—to perfect ourselves in Him; and this is our perfection, to reach Him: having reached Him, seek no farther, for he is your End.” (St Augustine, on Psalm 56) The holy Doctor gives us, when we have reached this point, the best instruction as to how we are to live in the divine Union: “Let us cling to One, let us enjoy One, let us all be one in Him;”  hæreamus Uni, fruamur Uno, permaneamus unum. (De Trinity, 50:4:11) (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Seventeenth Sunday after Pentecost.)

In a spirit of true Charity, therefore, we continue to beg Our Lady to send all non-Catholics in the world, the conciliar revolutionaries, the grace to convert to the Catholic Faith while, at the same time, we beg her to help us to be converted away from our own sins, our lukewarmness, our worldliness, and our pride so that we can cooperate more fully with the graces won for us for her Divine Son and which flow into our hearts and souls through her loving hands as the Mediatrix of All Graces.

Yes, we must reform our own lives with every beat of our hearts, consecrated as they must be to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. In order to do this, of course, we love God as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through His Catholic Church with our whole mind, our whole soul, our whole body, our whole heart and our whole strength. We must love others for love of Him, Who wills the good of all men, which is the salvation of their immortal souls as members of the Catholic Church.

As though we needed any more proof as the facts about Robert Francis Prevost were well known at the time of his “election” on May 8, 2025, recent events, including his appointing one sodomite friendly “bishop” after another to various positions and the continued stream of limpid apostasy that comes out of his mouth and from the Vatican printing presses, the Feast of the Apparition of Saint Michael the Archangel, the events of the last few days should remove any “mystery” about the fact that, both he and the false religious sect he heads are bereft of the Catholic Faith.

We must, therefore, continue to pray Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary with love, fervor, and confidence, knowing that her Immaculate Heart will triumph in the end, as we pray for the end to the nightmare that is conciliarism and its alliance with the agents of the adversary himself.

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 John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Matthew, pray for us,