Anyone who has read The Daily Catholic these past weeks or has been reading between the lines of the ZENIT news reports knows only too well that when it comes to modern Rome, something is definitely 'rotten in Denmark.'
Just as Paul VI issued his "abomination of desolation" on the Feast of Passover on April 3, 1969, so also his successor has mocked the very Faith he has vowed to uphold by appointing a Jew as the Bishop of Jerusalem - the Modernist French Benedictine Abbot Bishop Jean-Baptiste Gourion. He might be Jewish in culture and birth, but was he not baptized? If so, then there is no way he can say "I am a Jew first." How sad that on the feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul, when Saul forever turned from Judaism and embraced Christianity and the New Jerusalem - the Catholic Church established by Jesus Christ Himself on the Rock of Peter - that the 'Newer Jerusalem' thinking is a total reversal of Paul's actions with Gourion, having the blessings of the Pope by his appointment and no immediate denial from Rome, announcing that it is no longer necessary for Christians to convert Jews.
Okay, then if that is true, then Paul's work was all in vain. As was the work of his fellow Apostles. As was the work of the Christians who evidently were fools by giving up a chance to live in harmony with the Romans and chose the ghastly death in the Colosseum at the jaws of the lions or gladiators. So also was all in vain for the saints that sprouted from the blood of these martyrs.
Why did Pope Saint Leo the Great send the barbarian Atila the Hun away when 'dialogue' would have provided a vehicle where Tartar and Roman could live in harmony and compromise the truths of the Faith?
Why should Saint Benedict hole himself and others away from the world in monasteries where they could have lived in such comfort in the world. After all, doesn't everyone go to Heaven?
Why should St. Bernard of Clairvaux preach a crusade to recover the Holy Land and save the City of Jerusalem when it was going to be given over to Zionists nearly ten centuries later? Why couldn't he as well as Saint Louis IX just sit down and talk things out with the Saracens. I mean we must be sensitive to the Muslim way of thinking.
Think about it, Saint Francis of Assisi would have been better off keeping his father's wealth. Why walk all the way to Rome just to deny oneself for a Creator Who was just as happy with those who rejected His Son and who refused to believe or be baptized.
Why should Saint Francis Xavier travel half way around the world to bring the True Faith to the Orient when Buddhism and Hinduism were just fine, thank you?
Why should Saint Thomas Beckett and, a few centuries later, another countryman Saint Thomas More die at the hands of the executioner when all they had to do was follow their respective English kings and please man? How much easier life would have been.
Why should we believe that the Mother of God would appear to an itinerant peasant on Chapultapec Hill in Guadalupe at the height of the Protestant Reformation? Surely it had to be a ruse. Save for the human sacrifice fault, the pagan culture of the Aztecs was perfectly suitable to God. After all, it was incorporated into the 'Mass' in Mexico City during the canonization ceremonies of Juan Diego.
Why did the Cure d'Ars Saint John Vianney waste so much time in the confessional, when God forgives us anyway no matter what we do just by saying as the Protestants claim, 'Lord, You are my savior. I am saved.' Praise the Lord and pass the ecumayonnaise.
Why should missionaries brave the elements, leaving the comforts behind to evangelize the savages when their own culture was perfectly acceptable to the Great Maker of Nature? Just think, Saint Isaac Jogues and his companions could have lived out their lives in comfort and left the Iroquois and Mohawks to their own cultural religions. After all, God is a God of love, surely He wouldn't deny them salvation if they didn't know that Christ commanded that everyone hear the Gospel, believe it and be baptized if they wanted to be saved. If not, well, Our Lord made it perfectly clear in Mark 16: 16: "but he that believeth not, shall be condemned."
But then, do we really know if Christ said that or was it something conjured up by radical Christians to 'force' others to accept Christianity? After all, you have to consider the possibilities of other gospels. Don't forget the 'Da Vinci Code.' Though this is pure rubbish, we are supposed to treat it as plausible, but not 'The Passion'. Puh-leeze!
And what of the dogmas that were declared infallibly by previous Supreme Pontiffs? According to today's Pharisees that was for 'those times' and not today for we are an enlightened people today and evolving to become more aware of ourselves and how God is revealing Himself and what He really meant in a new manner through new theologies. Just as John Smith told Brigham Young God had gotten it wrong and so 'He' appeared to him so that this man - who would call himself a Mormon - would convey the revised truth to all. Hey, we all make mistakes, even God, evidently. Not!
Yet, that is what we're being asked to believe today. That God really didn't intend to abandon His chosen people; that He would wait nearly 2000 years for them to regroup and reclaim the Holy City and wipe out any remembrance of that 'failed experiment' of sending His Only-begotten Son to redeem mankind - erh, oops, Gentiles. The Jews don't count. They're already in a class by themselves. Oh, you haven't heard? Just ask a Jew and he'll tell you. They claim they are descendants of the chosen people - children of Abraham - yet I fear, just as Abraham couldn't find ten just men in all of Sodom and Gomorrah, you won't find ten who are truly descended from Abraham. After the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. the Jews were scattered to the four corners of the earth, quite possibly as punishment for collectively rejecting Christ. Ever think of that?
Now, note, I did not say "for collectively killing The Christ. No, we - every man and woman over the past 2000 years share collectively in His death. The curse, as recorded in Matthew 27: 25 is quite clear on this: "And all the people answering, said: His blood be upon us, and upon our children." You'll note Matthew didn't write "All the 'Jews'." He wrote "all the people." Not just Jew, not just Gentile or Roman who were in the crowds in Jerusalem in 33 A.D. Ever think of that?
This is exactly the point Mel Gibson has emphasized: that each one of us is responsible for Christ's death. In fact, in the film, Mel's only visual role are his hands pounding the nail into Christ's left hand. I would say that's pretty much an admission of how Mel feels in conveying that we all share the guilt. He is speaking from his heart and being true to the Scriptures. Yet, Zionist interests relentlessly attack Mel throwing charges of anti-Semitism at him. Puh-leeze! There is not a prejudice bone in his body. Can Abraham Foxman of the ADL say the same?
Perhaps, as the great bard penned, they doth protest too much. Why? Could it be to cover up the fact that Foxman and his Anti-Defamation League along with B'nai Brith are not truly Jewish. Yes, they are imposters who pose as Jews, who relish being Jewish but have abandoned the prophecies foretold in the Old Testament of the Messiah. . For the most part, the true Jews have died out. None can trace their lineage back to Abraham, let alone to the time of Christ. In that two millennia the people intermarried, and refashioned the Torah to suit them such as the Talmud and the "Book of Maimonedes." Father Louis Campbell clearly delineated the origins of this in his must-read sermon this past Sunday The New Judaizers.
The 'Jews' of today are extremely jealous of sharing any of the pain and torture with any one else, yet they seek pity from everyone. Mel's dad Hutton Gibson has also been accused of being an anti-Semite. This was the Achilles heel that the New York Times and Los Angeles Times sought to bring Mel to his knees last Fall. But he comes from stronger stock. Hutton did not raise fools. Hutton has been so misunderstood and dissed when, in truth, he is right in his assessment that the Holocaust had been singled out as an icon of guilt by the Jews for the rest of the world to make up to them. Blame everyone else. Never mind the millions of Christians who died over 300 years in Rome. Never mind the millions of Catholics and Orthodox who lost their lives in the Soviet gulags over 70 years. Never mind the Catholics who were also persecuted by Hitler. No, they want exclusivity even in suffering. That was evident several years ago when they demanded the Pope remove the crosses outside Auschwitz where untold numbers of Catholics had been memorialized. Are we not allowed to mourn as well? Evidently not. This Pope had them removed. Never mind the millions and millions and millions and millions of countless unborns who were slaughtered just as mercilessly in the womb as the Jewish prisoners in the death camps. Dr. Frank Joseph pointed this out so keenly in his column The Snakepit of Abortion in declaring, "So much has been made of the Holocaust in Germany that killed 7 to 9 million Jews in the concentration camps in Germany and Poland. Again, one life is terrible enough. The number of Jews killed were atrocious indeed. But compared to the numbers of the innocent unborns, well the Holocaust of World War II pales in comparison. You would think, because of the sensitivities of the Jews, they would be overwhelmingly pro-life and against this holocaust of the womb. You would think so. But the fact is that almost to a man or woman Jewish politicians and judges are pro-abortion. Does that make sense? I didn't think so."
Ah, yes, the contradictions abound. Not only with the Jews but also with Catholics. That brings us to our dear misguided friends - the neo-Catholics. It seems that every time another obvious abuse of the Faith emanates from Rome, they are quick to launch their lightweight new theologians to defend the heretical actions of the Cardinals and Pope. How do they do this? By backing up the hierarchy's actions with solid Catholic doctrine? No, of course not because there is no way they can. Well, then perhaps they use Vatican II documents to back up their arguments. Well, yes and no. But even some of the Vatican II documents didn't go as far as this. So what is their tactic to defend these aberrations? Why none other than attacking Traditional Catholics. They send out their pop-gun 'experts' like Matt Abbot, Paul Likoudis, Patrick Madrid or a recycled Karl Keating or even lighter weights like the undistinguished Stephen Hand to distract from what is truly happening. The latter has truly had a 'hand' in confusing neo-Catholics even more. You see the latter was, and then he wasn't, and then he was. Oh, well, wait a few minutes. He may change again. I guess it depends on what was was. But then that's the shallow epidermis of the neo-Catholics or conservative Catholics or whatever they want to call themselves. You know who I'm referring to: those who embrace Vatican II and its reforms at the detriment of all the Council of Trent decreed. Never mind that a pastoral-only council can never trump a sacred, dogmatic and infallible Council. That flies over the heads of the clueless CUFs.
You see, they were once true Catholics. But then, in blind obedience and truly believing that this Pope was a good, even a holy Pope, they went along with whatever he said. No one questioned his continuing the abomination introduced by his predecessor. Few questioned the introduction of rock masses though they weren't comfortable, especially those weaned on Gregorian chant, but then the majority were going along with it so it must be okay. Hey, we'll get use to it. Then came all the women in the sanctuary. It'll take time but we accept it because the Pope does, but at least they're not serving. Wait a second, they are. Well that can't be because being an Acolyte was the first step to the priesthood and...well, okay, if everyone else is going along with it and the Pope has accepted it. Wait, a joint worship service in Assisi with leaders of every major faith? Placing Buddha on the tabernacle, above Jesus! No! It can't be. But you didn't know? That was in 1986. Only a few did know until the advent of the internet. Maybe the earthquake in Assisi should have alerted us that God was not happy. But when the same syncretism was repeated in 2002 few were shocked. How great they exclaimed. This is truly the way towards peace. Never mind 9-11, why not an interfaith shrine? Target Fatima. We'll spin it so they won't have a clue. It's all for world peace. Ah, yes, peace. Wasn't it Our Lord Who clearly said in Matthew 10: 34, "Do not think that I am come to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword."
Whoa, wait a minute. That doesn't jive with what this Pope is preaching about global peace for man. Didn't Christ say in Luke 12: 51, "Think ye that I am come to give peace on earth; I tell you no, but separation." Separation? Division? Well now that's the very thing that this Pope wants to eliminate. You know: the "solidarity of globalization." Did not the Beloved Disciple John record in John 14: 27, "Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world giveth do I give to you." and in chapter 16: 33, "These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you shall have distress; but have confidence, I have overcome the world." Why then does this Pope insist on having confidence in the world? Why does he turn to the satanic UN for guidance and direction for today's civilization? Why has he abdicated the authority of Holy Mother the Church as the sole authority of the world under the banner of the Sovereign Kingship of Jesus Christ? Good questions that have few answers, folks.
Obvious contradictions that grow curiouser and curiouser each day in this new millennium. It began in 2000 right off the bat with a downgrading of the Papacy by bowing to an Anglican prelate. Then it heightened with those wretched illegal apologies of "the Church" which was heresy for the Church is the Mystical Bride of Christ and cannot sin. The men in the Church can, did and do, but the wording was so ambiguous that it could easily be misrepresented as saying the Church was wrong; all part of the ambiguous android that burrowed into every document and proclamation since the death of Pope Pius XII. The various events in the Jubilee year were geared towards one agenda - ecumenism. The only truly Catholic event that occurred? Well, the Pope was not present when scores of faithful following the Society of St. Pius X entered the Basilica to pray. The guards, employees, Cardinals and priests had not seen such reverence since, well, the time of Pius XII.
Up until the Jubilee year, many Catholics, yours truly included I must admit, actually thought that this Pope was just biding time, waiting to weed out the liberal, heretical bishops and appoint new, conservative good ones who would help bring the Church back to its traditional bearings. So much for that pipe dream which was burst in the consistory of February 22, 2001 when this Pope elevated two German liberal, outspoken modernist students of Hans Kung to the College of Cardinals - Cardinal Karl Lehmann and Cardinal Walter Kasper. To make matters worse and solidify his legacy as one of the worst popes to ever rule, John Paul II made the latter the head of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. Kasper the friendly ghost (to all but Traditional Catholics, of course) immediately was unleashed and all of a sudden inter-communion became the norm. Ain't ecumenism great?
If that appointment wasn't bad enough, the Pope's inaction in disciplining, truly disciplining the abusive, Masonic and Mafia-like Bishops and Cardinals, especially in the United States, especially on the West Coast in the largest see in Southern California to be exact, was obvious. It took documentation that the most Modernist, liberal, heretical bishop of the bunch - Archbishop Rembert Weakland was a hardened sodomite before this Pope accepted his resignation; that after all the damage had been done, the lies covered up and then exposed in all its ugliness along with the same ugliness in St. John's sanctuary which once was so reverent. Torn asunder by a disciple of the devil. It took an arrest for vehicular murder to finally accept the resignation of Bishop Thomas O'Brien in Phoenix, and then only because the media made it quite well known that this 'shepherd' never thought about administering last rites to the soul he had hit. Oh, wait, it could have been a dog. Takes one to know one I guess. It took the international media and bad press to get this Pope to call a tea party in the Vatican where he really got tough by merely slapping Cardinal Bernard Law's wrists publicly. There, that will take the suspicion off this Pope. Never mind the fact Law had been back and forth to Rome for several years consulting with the Pope and those in the higher echelons. Documents provided by the Boston Globe proved it wasn't the media that had scared up the scandal and within these documents was absolute proof that the Pope himself knew well in advance what was going on. How can you applaud that kind of cover-up?
Are you aware of what the holy Pope Saint Gregory the Great said? "It is better that scandal arise than that the truth be concealed."? Or have you heard the unmistakable words of Pope Saint Felix III ? "Not to oppose error is to approve it: and not to defend truth is to suppress it: and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them." Surely you have read what that great Doctor of the Church Saint Robert Bellarmine wrote in his De Romano Pontifice on the Papacy: "It is permissible to resist the Pope when he invades souls and troubles the commonwealth; and moreover, if he appears to be causing harm to the Church, it is permissible, I say, to resist him by not doing what he enjoins and by preventing his will to triumph."
Well, my dear neo-Catholic friends, while you may think I am merely "pope-bashing" because I am so hard on this Pope, what I am doing is everything I can as a loyal Catholic in striving to preserve the Papacy in "preventing his will to triumph" for indeed he "invades souls and troubles the commonwealth" with his stubborn, no-turning back humanistic, ecumaniacal agendas. It not only "appears to be causing harm to the Church" but it has proven to have caused great harm. Statistics and the entire state of belief of today's Catholics verify this. So it may be a scandal that this Pope is gravely, gravely wrong. It is better "that scandal arise than the truth be concealed." Why? Because souls, countless souls are at stake. By not opposing his error I am approving it. By not defending the truth, I am suppressing it. By neglecting to confound him and his deeds when I can then I am encouraging him and his entire agenda and thereby compounding the sin. In all good conscience before God I must follow what was taught from Peter through Pius XII. To do less would be to betray Our Lord.
I am writing this on the feast of the holy Confessor Saint Peter Nolasco, bookended yesterday and tomorrow by the Double Feasts of two wonderful orthodox Doctors of the Church who I must follow. Yesterday the "Golden Mouth of Truth" as Saint John Chrysostom was called, and tomorrow Saint Francis de Sales, who is the patron saint of the Catholic Press. In order to be true to our crucial role as members of the Catholic Press, we must uphold the Truths and Traditions of Holy Mother Church, no matter the costs. To solidify this I rely on what another great Doctor of the Church Saint Augustine said, "Wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it, and right is right even if nobody is doing it." We'll stand with right. The right that was taught from Peter through Pius XII. And we will stand here and state unequivocally - and you can quote me - that this Pope is flat-out wrong! I will do all in my power to stop his will from triumphing. But I will also pray with all my heart for his soul for it is great danger. Remember Christ's charge in Luke 12: 48, "And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required; and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more." If we demand so much more of our Vicar of Christ, what do you think God asks? Would you want to be standing in Karol Wojtyla's shoes right now? Better right now than after he dies for at least now he still has the chance to turn back, to recant the anathemas he has allowed to permeate the Church. Judas Iscariot wouldn't repent. That was his sin. But the Pope needs to realize that the degree of how and where he has steered the Barque of Peter away from the infrangible truths is intricately linked to the state of his own soul. He can't be blinded to that fact, can he?
The great Apostle to the Gentiles has to be moaning at the exodus of faithful from the True Faith in following the false prophets in Rome and Jerusalem. Why do people ignore his warning in Galatians 1: 8-10? It boggles my mind. Consider Paul's words very, very carefully: "I wonder that you are so soon removed, from him who called you to the grace of Christ, to another gospel; which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an Angel fro Heaven, preach a gospel to you beside that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema." So important was this, that he repeated it: "As we said before, so I say now again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema." Those aren't my words, folks, but the Apostle Paul's. Divine Revelation. Dogma we must believe. He explained it even further, "for do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I did yet please men, I should not be the servant of Christ."
So I will not be swayed - as many in the media have been - even if this Pope chooses to applaud circus performers on the first day of January or rappers and break-dancers in his own backyard on the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul, applauding and praising them while the rest of his kingdom struggles with the temptations pouring forth from the culture that created rap, hip-hop, break-dancing, and indecent dress. I noticed in the photo that accompanied the article and in the article itself that the Pope praised and encouraged this creative effort, this work of 'art.' Wait a minute, isn't that an endorsement? Wait a minute, didn't the Vatican just say last week that the Pope doesn't do that for anything regarding the arts in their blatant denial that the Pope had endorsed Mel's film? Ah yes, one lie compounded on another. Once again caught in their own lie for the world to see. It's typical of this Vatican these days. They seek to please men. From the Pope on down to the Bishops and most of the NO priests, their goal is to keep Joe and Sally happy in their pews - oops, chairs - so that they'll continue to fill the collection plate and feel a part of the 'community of unity.' Ergo, if we are to deduce what Paul has said, and there is no reason to doubt for it is Divine Revelation. Even if an angel, read - the great, walk-on-water 'holy' Polish Pope - preach a gospel to you beside that which has been passed down through Sacred Tradition, let him be anathema.
Can't put it any plainer, folks!
The fact is this Vatican has long ago abandoned the truth as is evident with the entire Jewish agenda and the stance that Jews no longer need to be converted. Anathema all! They have sold out Our Lord. As a follow-up to my editorial in HOT ISSUES last week 'It' depends on what 'is' was!, more light can be shed on this very subject. The Jews do indeed have the Holy Father's ear. No sooner did the Chief Rabbis of Israel leave their meeting with the Pope then the Vatican issued the denial that it really wasn't as it was. You see it was not only the modernist, anti-Traditional interests who didn't want the Pope's seal of approval on "The Passion of The Christ" but the top Jewish hierarchs as well. And so the Sanhedrin have their man in Jerusalem thanks to their man in Rome and they didn't even need thirty pieces of silver for the Judas Kiss.