About a year ago 21 clerics at the Vatican were finishing up a document that would be signed officially on the Solemnity of the Ascension of Our Lord on May 24th by none other than the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. By so doing, he put his Imprimatur on a document which, as you will discover, is full of anathemas, yea, heresies!
The document in question is one which the Pontifical Biblical Commission quietly released in November in a 213 page book. There have been only two versions released to date, a French translation and an Italian text. It was the latter which we requested and procured from Robert Moynihan, editor of Inside The Vatican Magazine in early February. Few, if any, would have known anything about it had it not been for a small report by the Italian news agency ANSA on January 16th this year. Vatican correspondent for the New York Times Melinda Henneberger picked up on it and wrote a story released the next day. It was the headline that caught everyone's attention: "Vatican Says Jews' Wait for Messiah Is Validated by the Old Testament." Say what? This article was forwarded to us on January 21st by our dear friend and legal counsel Marty Sweeney in Dallas. The headline of the e-mail memo he forwarded was "Pope Admits Jesus Wasn't Messiah, Jews Were Right." The original sender of the e-mail which Marty forwarded wrote the comment, "This is absolutely pitiful, and it demonstrates the Vatican is completely controlled by Jews." Wow, that sounds like anti-Semitism, doesn't it? However, considering the tone of Henneberger's article, and the comments by both Vatican and Jewish authorities interviewed, we decided to forward it to several contacts who replied that if what Henneberger wrote is true, then Rome has truly lost the faith.
Now the New York Times is certainly no bastion of conservatism and so many were skeptical that the article per se had a pro-Israeli tone to it and that the reporter had totally misrepresented the Vatican's position - had blown it out of proportion. After all, if Henneberger was right, then it seems it would be pure heresy the Holy See was condoning. What was even more alarming was the fact the pope's spokesman Dr. Joaquin Navarro-Valls made the unmitigated statement in quotes, "The expectancy of the Messiah was in the Old Testament, and if the Old Testament keeps its value, then it keeps that as a value, too. It says you cannot just say all the Jews are wrong and we are right." When pressed for clarification by Henneberger, Navarro-Valls echoed this unbelievable affirmation: "It means it would be wrong for a Catholic to wait for the Messiah, but not for a Jew." You heard right. To make matters even worse, he used the anti-Semitism card to try to justify that the Evangelists were on a political foray against the Jews. Unbelievable, but true. And to trump what Navarro-Valls was spinning, Henneberger reported he said 'everything in the report is now considered part of official church doctrine.' As Moynihan noted in his February issue, those were not his official words for Henneberger did not put them in quotes, only attributing that remark to Navarro-Valls who Christopher Ferrara is fond of facetiously calling "Pope Navarro-Valls." Nevertheless, Navarro-Valls' take truly alarmed us.
One of the tell-tale lines, a comment by a Jewish community leader and commentator Tullia Zevi who Henneberger interviewed for the story is what truly sent us into the detective mode on why it had been so quietly released: "One possibility was that the church was trying to avoid criticism within its own ranks." Woe! As we have seen from the unprecedented attacks on Father Nicholas Gruner over the contents of the Third Secret of Fatima message, Modern Rome has a track record of covering up. We decided to uncover the truth. Though we knew of this story, we decided not to say anything here in The DAILY CATHOLIC until we knew all the facts. I immediately e-mailed Moynihan who admitted he was concerned but needed to fully read it before taking a stand and we could appreciate that since we also were doing the same thing. Yet, in his February Issue he wrote a two page article in which he nixed the importance of the Biblical Commission which he numbered at 30, though, according to the Annuario Pontificio of 2001, there are only 21 official members identified. He took issue, as I mentioned above, with the fact that Navarro-Valls was not quoted directly, nevertheless we would argue that the gist of what he said about it now being 'official Church doctrine' was captured adroitly by Henneberger.
I called Atila Sinke Guimar„es to ask if he would be willing to read the Italian text and clarify what was really being promoted. What better person to consult than this renowned scholar who is a master at cutting through the ambiguous text and uncovering the real intent? This humble Brazilian Traditionalist has over 30 years of expertise in exposing the grave errors of Vatican II. Indeed, he is the foremost expert today in unmasking the modernists' agenda of the Second Vatican Council and revealing who the culprits were and are, many of whom are in power today. Atila's works, knowledge and close friendship have played a major role in our more clearly seeing and understanding better the causes and effects of the massive deception that has been perpetrated universally on the faithful over the past 40 years. Atila willingly accepted our offer and, after receiving the book through Robert Moynihan on February 4th, I forwarded it to him. He already has a full docket on his tight schedule, but he graciously agreed to do the critique, a book review if you will. He is working tirelessly to release this year one, possibly two more books from his vaunted series Eli, Eli Sabbactani which, one day will become the benchmark for scholars everywhere in studying what truly happened in the latter part of the twentieth century. I cannot recommend strongly enough his first two books, In the Murky Waters of Vatican II and Animus Delendi - I. They are both available via Tradition in Action. Anyone who has read his works or knows him will realize he is a serious scholar able to determine what truly was in the document from the Pontifical Biblical Commission.
With the expert assistance of Dr. Marian Therese Horvat Atila read thoroughly several times the 213 page document and took the deliberate, necessary time to write his findings in his native tongue of Portuguese. Marian translated and edited it to English, consulting with Atila to make sure there was no misunderstanding in translation. He forwarded the final text to us and now we're ready to release it to the public. His title says it all: "The Biblical Commission on the Jews: Changes in Doctrine and New Anathemas" It needs to be circulated wide and far. Therefore, rather than publishing it all at once, we decided to publish in seven installments twice a week with the final installment - the conclusion, which clearly sums up his findings - to be published on May 6th.
The reason for extending them to seven installments is so that the reader can fully digest the impact of his findings. In addition, if they missed any installments we will provide links to previous installments for review.
We also have also forwarded Atila's critique to Moynihan at Inside The Vatican and Atila has even offered to debate anyone from the Biblical Commission, even Cardinal Ratzinger himself; not in an in-your-face challenge, but in a respectful, necessary and dutiful we-resist-you-to-your-face manner that is the true Catholic means of dialogue, not the compromising, meaningless definition of the term in the post-conciliar era with false religions.
We carried Cardinal Ratzinger's Preface to the document last Monday, without editorial commentary. On Monday, May 6th in his conclusion, Atila will comment on Ratzinger's Preface and, contrary to Moynihan's contention that the Cardinal "as such he did approve the document, but in so doing he was not acting in his role as the Pope's chief doctrinal officer, but in the role as a scholar among scholars," and contrary to the blind conservatives, Atila will clearly show that Ratzinger, a leading proponent of historicism is, in truth, very much a progressivist.
As the reader begins his journey to understanding the truth, I would like to offer my two-cents worth, so to speak.
The question can first be raised on what is the Biblical Commission. It was first instituted by Pope Leo XIII on October 30, 1902. It was called upon by Pope Saint Pius X to clarify modern errors that were being promulgated even then regarding Jesus Christ as the Messiah for both Jew and Gentile.
In a response from the Biblical Commission on June 19, 1911 in article VI, as recorded in Denzinger, 2153, p. 553, in retort to the question:
Whether from the fact that the author of the first Gospel pursues especially the dogmatic and apologetic aim, namely of demonstrating to the Jews that Jesus is the Messias foretold by the prophets, and descended from the lineage of David, and from the fact that when arranging the deeds and words which he narrates and sets forth anew, he does not always hold to the chronological order, it may be deduced that these matters are not to be accepted as true; or, also, whether it can be affirmed that the accounts of the accomplishments and discourses of Christ, which are read in the Gospel itself, have undergone a kind of alteration and adaptation under the influence of the prophets of the Old Testament, and the status of the more mature Church, and so are by no means in conformity with historical truth?
The Biblical Commission's response to such thought:
Reply: In the negative to both parts.
Yet, did you realize that according to the current crop on the Biblical Commission this now is "in the positive to both parts"? That's right, just like that the Biblical Commission has done a 180 degree turn. So typical of the post-conciliar Church. Oh, and did you know that it was Pope Paul VI who completely restructured it on June 27, 1971? A good two years after he had foisted on the faithful his novelty 'Mass,' he followed by opening the door so doctrine could be totally twisted to suit the sensibilities of man, or, as he termed it - the "People of God."
For thirty-one years this Biblical Commission has been allowed to fester and entertain new thoughts and ideas that were soundly denounced by a previous Pontifical Biblical Commission which carried much more clout under a very, holy Roman Pontiff like St. Pius X. Yet, it has been under Pope John Paul II's watch that it was attached to Cardinal Ratzinger and his office of the Doctrine of the Faith. The Pope has appointed this motley crew who dare to question the wisdom of the Evangelists, of the Old Testament prophets, of Doctors of the Church, of Fathers of the Church, of Saints, of Popes and even of Jesus Christ Himself Who very clearly established infallibly the dogma of "Outside the Church there is no salvation" - Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - with His words in Mark 16: 15-16, "Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be condemned."
Now what part of that statement do these scholarly "experts" on the Biblical Commission, and that includes Ratzinger, not understand? We know that Baptism is a Sacrament, which has its fullness of Heaven's will only in the Catholic Church. We know, too, that Our Lord said the "whole world." You would think since this current regime is so gung-ho for globalization that they would understand what "whole world" means. We know also He said "every creature." Note, He didn't make exceptions, did not say, "except the Jews because they're still waiting for their Messiah!" But, believe it or not, that's what the Biblical Commission has said. Now what would you call that? The Apostle Saint Paul called it "anathema" in 1 Galatians 1: 8-10. And you'll also note that He didn't say those who were not baptized, it would be alright if they believed however they wanted to believe. He didn't echo what Mother Teresa, who conservative Catholics have elevated on such a pedestal and is being pushed through the canonization process, said, as reported by Cornelia Ferreira in the March issue of Catholic Family News: "What God is in your mind, you must accept." That, too, even from a potential saint, is heresy! Finally, you'll note Christ made it very clear the fate of those who were not baptized, who did not believe. They would be condemned. No ifs, ands, or buts about it!
But ever since Vatican II when the apparachix were in place to 'officially begin' the auto-demolition of the Church Christ founded, relativism has been cloaked by humanism, ecumenism and religious liberty. When you cut through the thick ambiguity you will find exactly what Blessed Pope Pius IX identified in his Syllabus of Errors, and exactly what St. Pius X warned of in his masterful encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis What we have, folks, is the gradual evolution of man replacing God. That is the greatest of heresies, the greatest of anathemas.
To accomplish this they had to pull the wool totally over the eyes of the sheep. Release tons of material that gives the semblance of orthodoxy on the surface, but underneath roils with complexity and purposeful ambiguity that will allow the modernists to interpret whatever they want into it, even to changing Divine Revelation. That is what they are doing. No one has enabled this more than John Paul II beginning with his schmoozing with the Jews in their synagogue in 1986, the same year he held the first abominable Assisi summit. Yet there was no outrage. I'm just as much to blame, folks. I was totally fooled as well. I was one of the foremost in pre-canonizing this Pope because his charismatic demeanor had won so many over. As I have confessed to all, I was among those chanting enthusiastically "John Paul II, we love you!" at World Youth Day in Denver in 1993. Mea Culpa for not saying, "Jesus Christ, we trust in You!" Fool me once, okay. Fool me twice, no way!
One of the major factors in our turning The DAILY CATHOLIC from a popular conservative website to a staunch Traditional daily website was the string of apologies the Holy Father made during the Jubilee Year. That and a pilgrimage to Lourdes which helped reawaken in us so much of what we had lost, what we were weaned on - the Tridentine Mass, the absolutes and disciplines that sustained Holy Mother Church for two millennia. The graces from that pilgrimage healed us of our blindness to what was truly going on.
And we pray that finally those, who have so stubbornly clung to the belief that John Paul II will make everything right, will finally wake up to an undeniable fact: What he is doing is the problem! If the two Assisi fiascos - events that had been soundly denounced by previous Roman Pontiffs up until the advent of Newchurch in the sixties - don't incense you; if the countless apologies for truths that saints and sinners died for don't wake the faithful; if the total abuse of the liturgy; the scandal of sexual abuse and the unmitigated cover-ups that are now, finally, being exposed from Boston to Los Angeles and which can be traced to a few appointments by Pope John XXIII and Paul VI, but mostly the majority by John Paul II, and which wreak with the stench of Cardinal Joseph Bernardin's progressivist, tolerant signature that gave free reign to the swarm of sodomite bishops in place today in America that have raped seminaries of good men...well, if none of that outrages you, then maybe, just maybe finally you'll realize that what a document released by this post-conciliar Church has done is preach a gospel other than that which you have received. (cf. 1 Galatians 1: 8-10).
And while we are on 1 Galatians 1, consider the next six verses, of which I will treat individually. In verse 10, Paul says,
"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. For I give you to understand, brethren, that the Gospel which was preached by me is not according to man." Does the post-conciliar Church and its commissions, not to mention its hierarchy, largely seek to persuade and please man with their ecumenical bent? The answer has to be a resounding 'yes!' Therefore, they would not be servants of Christ. That, folks, includes the Vicar of Christ. Sad but true!
The next verse,
"For neither did I receive it from man, nor did I learn it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." Yet, that 'revelation of Jesus Christ' offends Jewish ears and so therefore that must be modified to please the sensitivities of our separated, stubborn, denying brethren. How do they mollify those who have not embraced Christ's truths stated clearly in the absolute truths laid down in Mark 16: 15-16? By creating doubt about the very nature of the Word Himself. "The Word was made flesh" (John 1: 14) but the Jews don't accept that so that needs to be interpreted to suit their fancy. This could not have been possible in 1958. It would take decades of deceit, fifth columnists infiltrating our beloved Church and, like a cancer, destroying her from within by changing the meanings of absolutes in the same clever and devious manner as Bill Clinton's infamous "It depends on the meaning of what is is" statement. He learned well from the Jesuits of Georgetown. By the way, the Jesuits have the majority among the 21 members of the Biblical Commission with five from the Company; not the Society or ideals that resemble what Saint Ignatius of Loyola envisioned.
To confuse the faithful further they released tomes and tomes of material that would simply overwhelm the common Catholic, prompting even bishop and priest into accepting whatever came down the pike. For truth be told, very few shepherds at the diocesan or parish level truly ever fully read what came out of the Vatican from 1965 on. This has especially held true during the last two decades for the more the present Pope wrote, the more the spin patrol took over and 'summarized' it. And we all bought it, lock, stock and barrel! The more ambiguous the shade, the greater the charade. Doctrine was altered deeper beneath the skin of 'feel good' social justice that was nothing but the I.V. of humanism, dripping slowly into our collective systems until we were drugged into a state of accepting anything and everything from a whole new novelty-ridden "New World Order Mass" despite Paul VI's promise that traditions would not be tampered with, to a total revision of Canon Law to cover up the their own trail, to a new Catechism that is the most ambiguous tome for the common man ever written. We didn't see it coming but we should have. From altar girls to acknowledging false religions, the deception has been complete. In fact, we should have been on our guard when Cardinal Ratzinger released his declaration Dominus Iesus or "We remember the Shoah" or countless other concessions to the ideological Hebrew mindset, including the humiliation to the Church low point of the Jubilee that saw the Pope groveling to the Jews as he shuffled across the Holocaust museum stone cold floor in Jerusalem and then stoked the fires of more anathema by begging forgiveness for holding the Jews responsible for not recognizing Christ as the Messiah.
Poor St. Paul must be turning over on his cloud saying, "this can't be happening!" Consider his words in verse 13-14,
"For you have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion; how that, beyond measure, I persecuted the Church of God, and laid it waste, and I made progress in the Jews' religion, above many of my equals in my own nation, being more abundantly zealous for the traditions of my fathers."
And what do we have today, the Church of God being laid waste again by the Sauls of the post-conciliar Church who give more credence to false religions than Divine Revelation and the traditions of Church Fathers. Just last week Cardinal Francis Arinze, president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, and a man some are predicting could be the first black pope, blatantly offered "hearty congratulations" to a false religion in a message released by the Holy See that reeks with humanism. Modern Rome's actions are exactly the heresies St. Pius X and others warned against. But that doesn't phase the common Catholic who figures if a cardinal says it, it must be right. Wrong! For St. Paul in 15-16 of 1 Galatians 1 states firmly,
"But when it pleased Him, Who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles: immediately I condescended not to flesh and blood." So also Modern Rome cannot condescend to flesh and blood, but the Church, outside of which there is NO salvation!
But to hear Cardinal Arinze, or Cardinal Walter Kasper or countless other princes of the church, prelates and, yes, the pope as well, making concessions, compromises and apologies is enough to make the blood boil of any loyal Catholic worth their salt! And once you have completed Atila's "Changes in Doctrine and New Anathemas" you should be righteously incensed as well.
We hope and pray that since our embracing a totally Traditional stance last fall, those who have expressed the ambiguous excuse that "they don't like the direction The DAILY CATHOLIC has taken" - and this included members of our own Board of Directors - that they will finally wake up and say, they don't like the direction the Church of Rome has taken. For indeed, Modern Rome is preaching a gospel contrary to that which we received and therefore is in anathema. Not since the Arian heresy has there been such widespread apostasy by the hierarchy of the Church and yet so few truly see the destruction as intentional. Even the spin on the cascading accounts of sexual abuse by priests that is flooding the media today refuses to acknowledge the root of the problem: Vatican II.
You don't have to take my word for it, just look around you at how the church of Modern Rome is collapsing, imploding right before your very eyes because she has veered away from the solid Catholic Truths and Traditions of Eternal Rome. Read Atila's undeniable critique over the next seven installments and then get back to me after May 6th and tell me to my face that you still "don't like the direction The DAILY CATHOLIC has taken." Truly I repeat for the umpteenth time, Our Lord made it crystal clear Vatican II is a 'bad tree' which cannot possibly produce good fruit. So also the Biblical Commission's document on the Jews. Skeptical though we were about the veracity of the Times account back in January, Henneberger has been absolved. She and another very important Lady - none other than the Blessed Virgin Mary at LaSalette - were right on. Rome has lost the faith. The evidence is obvious.