The Stated Intent of Pope Pius XII Concerning the Liturgy

by T. Stanfill Benns | Jun 27, 2023

© Copyright 2010, T. Stanfill Benns (This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the author.)

Several years ago, I made a thorough study of the decrees and circumstances surrounding the liturgical “innovations” allowed by Pope Pius XII. I referred to numerous sources, among them all those decrees mentioned in articles on my website/message board at www.betrayedcatholics.com. I also have undertaken a thorough study of Mediator Dei and available commentaries made on this encyclical in the late1940s, the annual reports on the National Liturgical weeks from 1940 to 1958, and other material available in the Canon Law Digests. To relate all that is pertinent in these sources would require lengthy research, which I cannot undertake at this time and others can conduct just as easily, and should, since they are making these allegations. So I will summarize the gist of what is contained in these works as best I can.

Mediator Dei was not “disastrous for the liturgy,” and it did NOT open the floodgates for the Vatican 2 changes and abrogation of the Latin rite Mass. Pope Pius XII carefully enumerates the various heresies he hopes to eradicate by issuing Mediator Dei, and provides the faithful with what THEY have indicated are tools to foster greater understanding of the Mass, the Liturgical Year and a more tender devotion to the Holy Eucharist. Pope Pius entertained a fervent devotion to the Sacrament himself and many of his allocutions are centered on this. Pope Pius XII was facing an epidemic of apathy and quietism among the faithful worldwide, a condition he mentions in Mystici Corporis and other decrees, addresses and encyclicals.  The ship was already slowly sinking and the captain broke out the lifeboats and the emergency rations. A good example of this apathy is contained in Peter Michaels’ This Perverse Generation, written in 1949.

Among those changes certain Trads consider innovations are the ceremonies of Holy Week in general, especially those of Good Friday and Holy Saturday. The other practice, the Dialogue Mass was not initiated, only continued, by Pope Pius XII. All of these changes are not actually changes at all, but a return to previous practices in the Church approved by the Holy See. This is well documented from numerous sources. The Dialogue Mass was first celebrated in the early Christian centuries. It was introduced once again by Pope Benedict XV personally, then was continued by Pope Pius XI and XII. So these cannot be referred to as actual changes, since reverting and changing are two separate words which are not synonymous.

As for the altar facing the people, Mass was said in this manner during the early centuries. Ten Roman basilicas have always celebrated Mass in this fashion. I do not favor it, most Traditionalists do not favor it, but Pope Pius XII allowed it under certain circumstances only because it brought more people into the churches. Around 25 percent of the churches in France set up altars in this fashion during the 1940s, apparently. This after Card. Suhard received permission, possibly from then-Nuncio Angelo Roncalli to celebrate Mass facing the people for special events. It was this same Card. Suhard who embarked on the experimental worker-priest project, later condemned by the Vatican, which alienated so many French Catholics, a project conducted under the supervision of both Montini and Roncalli. Pope Pius XII insisted that whether the altar faced the people or not, (and this, like the Dialogue Mass, was used optionally, and not by papal mandate) the tabernacle was to be permanently fixed to the altar, visible for all to see. If it could not be so done then the priest had to celebrate facing the altar.

Nor can it be said that there was not sufficient basis for these adjustments to the liturgy or that they in any way violated doctrine. It is clear that all these proposed practices were carefully studied and monitored before their implementation and were indeed requested by the faithful as well as their pastors in various parts of the world over a fairly lengthy time period. Cardinal Micara stated all of this in his Feb. 9, 1951 letter prefacing the return to the former observance. The Holy Week services were then conducted on a trial basis for four years before their promulgation. As regards the Eucharistic fast, all who were yet able to fast from midnight on are URGED BY POPE PIUS XII TO CONTINUE TO DO SO (Christus Dominus, 1953), since “only those who need these concessions can enjoy them according to the nature of their need.” Those who use the three-hour concession are urged to make up for the favor by performing acts of charity and increasing prayer and penance. The fast was never “REVOKED.” The controversy over omitting “perfidious Jews” in the Good Friday service and the Vatican interpretation of the Latin to English as “faithlessness,” sounds like a semantic affair to me. “Faithlessness” is precisely the first definition offered in Cassell’s Latin-English and English Latin Dictionary, (1923 edition) for “perfidi.”

The vernacular allowed in the administration of the Sacraments in France was negligible and favored the lay understanding of the Sacraments where it was allowed. The reading of the Gospel and Epistle was an indult allowed for Agar, India, a mission territory. It stipulated that the celebrant OR a “competent lay server” could read the Gospel and Epistle only after they had first been read in Latin by the priest. Pope Pius XII, in a separate monitum on altar servers, lays down strict rules for when a priest is allowed to celebrate Mass without a server. No “altar girls” are ever allowed; Pope Pius XII says the unanimous opinion of the theologians (held to a certain degree of infallibility) says this would be a mortal sin. Women are the last choice for “servers,” and must make the responses from afar, never stepping foot on the altar.  And as concerns the praise Pope Pius XII reportedly had for the liturgical innovators, this is proven false in an article written by Rev. Albert Kaiser in the December 1953 and January 1954 American Ecclesiastical Review. In his articles Kaiser clearly states that Mediator Dei was specifically aimed at the excesses of these very liturgists and names the heresies contained in their works that are condemned in the encyclical. Kaiser’s articles are a true revelation, since they shed much-needed light on the excesses in one direction that became the NOM and the excesses in the opposite direction that resisted even legitimate adjustment to those parts of the liturgy subject to ecclesiastical law, for reasons deemed serious by the lawgiver.

What would you say of what Tito Casini relates in his “The Torn Tunic” about Pope John VIII? Quoting from De Maistre, Casini writes: “In the ninth century Pope John VIII over-indulgently allowed the Slavs their own tongue in the celebration of the liturgy. But on reading a later letter of the Pontiff’s, the 95^th, one hardly wonders at his admission of the many drawbacks of such a dispensation. In fact Gregory VII revoked it — but too late — too late to save the Russians — with what ultimate results only became evident in the course of time; Russia’s separation from Rome and the people falling under the sway of a succession of ‘popes’ all of whom, Stalin included, succeeded in being at the same time heads of state and heads of Church, despotically ruling Godless multitudes.” How much more concise and profound an explanation of all this is needed?!

Casini continues: “Schisms and heresies have always been against Latin — always pro-vernacular, nationalistic — except insofar as Latin has always at the same time been envied, for the evident barrenness of the branches cut off from the Vine compared with those that remained joined. National languages, national liturgies, are but the first step toward national churches, admitted, favored, fostered and desired, with enticements and threats…Cardinal Midszenty, Cardinal Beran, Cardinal Wyszinski and so many others …would not be impeded or in prison but free, honored and salaried, had their Catholicism not spoken Latin…” Pope Pius XI, as quoted by Casini wrote: “The Church, embracing all peoples and enduring until time shall have an end, by the very nature that is hers, has need of a language that is universal, immutable, non-vernacular…The Church, one in language in her universality and one in her worship, was thereby always seen by the world’s peoples — today more than ever weary of warring, more than ever hankering for union and peace — as anti-Babel.” It is prophesied that great Babble-on will fall in St. John’s Apocalypse, and this by necessity for the preservation of the Church. Of course in Mediator Dei itself, Pope Pius XII called Latin “a clear and noble mark of unity and an efficacious antidote to all corrupting influences on pure doctrine.”

And here we arrive at the entire heart of the matter. Once again I will state: show me where Pope Pius XII violated doctrine. Explain to me why his reservation to make adjustments to the liturgy was, in any way, harmful to the Church in themselves. Perhaps we should indict John VIII as well, and have done with the entire second millennia of popes; this the Feeneyites and certain individuals wishing to take control of the Church plot to do even now. If one teacher is able to keep my son Tommy from certain disciplinary disaster by bending the rules as far as possible yet keeping him in line, am I going to blame her when the next teacher allows him to run wild? Someone must give PERMISSION to relax the previous rules. If the faithful were so intent on getting what they wanted from Pope Pius XII, then those who objected to what he did to Holy Week et al should and could have been just as vocal. So where were they? Why was it up to Pope Pius XII to “turn things around” when he had done what he did at the request of the bishops and the faithful, it met with success, and all was doctrinally sound?

The Church does not forbid her Vicars to make changes to liturgical practices as long as they do not touch the substance of the Sacraments. This Cyril B. Andrade, M.D., using the words of the popes themselves outlined clearly in his “The New Mass Is Invalid” almost four decades ago:

“(1) In the letter Super quibusdam (Sept.29,1351), Pope Clement VI taught: “The

Roman Pontiff, regarding the administration of the Sacraments of the Church, can tolerate and even permit different rites of the Church of Christ….always without violating those things which pertain to the integrity and necessary parts of the Sacraments.”

“(2) Council of Trent, Session III, Chap.2 : “It (the Council) declared furthermore that this power has always been in the Church, that in the administration of the Sacraments, without violating their substance, she may determine or change whatever she may judge to be more expedient for the benefit of those who receive them or for the veneration of the Sacraments, according to the variety of circumstances, times and places.”

“(3) Pope St. Pius X in the letter, Ex quo nono (Dec.26, 1910): “It is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything touching on the substance of the Sacraments.”

“(4) On November 30, 1947, Pope Pius XII issued the apostolic constitution, Sacramentum Ordinis, which reiterates and clarifies the same principle. “As the Council of Trent teaches, the seven Sacraments of the New Law have been instituted by Jesus Christ, Our Lord, and the Church has no power over the substance of the Sacraments; i.e., over those things which, with the sources of divine revelation as witnesses, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign.”

And in Mediator Dei itself, Pope Pius XII stated that no one but the Pope may decide what elements in the liturgy are human and may be changed: “The Sacred Liturgy does include Divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men… The Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification…No private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body, and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself.”

So please explain how Pope Pius XII did anything whatsoever to touch on the substance of the Sacraments, even though he lawfully exercised his papal power to change minor details of the liturgy?

What in truth so many disagree with is not any “unlawful” changes, but the supreme jurisdiction of the papacy that allows a matter so dear to so many hearts to be reserved to the Pope alone for a decision. Some have dared to criticize Pope Pius XII for lack of any solid historical background for his Holy Week revision, when as the vicar of all he needed none. Those sharing this mindset paint the man as a reformer favorable to all the changes that went after him. In short, they set themselves up as a judge of this Pope when NO ONE CAN JUDGE THE POPE, unless he is clearly guilty of manifest heresy. These are the bitter fruits of the Great Revolt and Traditional unrest and discord.  Many now believe they have the right to scrutinize every word and action of past Popes, weigh them, then obey only what seems good to them. Gone is the respect and obedience, the reverence for the papacy. “The Church has said it and I believe it” is not an option when all must be sifted for error at personal discretion, be the sifters clergy or lay. This is the great chasm separating Traditionalists, not the liturgy, and it was one envisioned by Pope Pius XII at the time he wrote Mediator Dei and made these concessions. In my opinion this discussion should be continued under a new title: Doctrine and the liturgy. For as Pope Pius XII clearly taught in Mediator Dei, the liturgy is to reflect the doctrines of the Church but is not the sum total of Catholic existence; it is not just the “Mass that matters.” As Adrian Fortescue points out in the Catholic Encyclopedia, it was the Reformers who first advanced this phrase as a slogan, not Catholics, and we can see what happened to THEIR church. They nationalized their religion in all its heretical variations. Now we face the universalization of all these nationalized churches under a one-world church, a danger warned against by Pope Benedict XV.

The recent documents circulated by certain individuals claiming that Pius XII is said to have authorized additional changes have not been — and cannot be — authenticated. If they appear to run contrary to what he officially taught in the extraordinary or his ordinary magisterium we have every reason to believe that his official teachings on these matters stand as a clear manifestation of the mind of the Church. We have his orders in Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis that NOTHING is to be changed, adjusted, re-interpreted or adapted in any way during an interregnum, which has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to exist. And if such changes are made, the pope uses his infallible authority to declare them null and void. This alone ends any controversy that he could possibly be said to approve what was introduced following his death. John VIII remained pope and was never censored and Pope Pius XII never allowed the vernacular liturgy far less the bastardized canon of the NOM mass. Do we destroy what is left of Catholicism by tearing down what little remains, condemning the “overindulgence” of Benedict XV, Pius XI and Pius XII as complicit, even heretical? Only at the price of judging these popes and forfeiting our membership in the very Church we profess to love.

(A list of complete quotes and references referred to in this article is available upon request.)

Why Guiseppe Siri Was Never Pope

by T. Stanfill Benns | Jun 27, 2023

© Copyright 2009, T. Stanfill Benns (This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the author.)

Introduction

Certain Traditionalists appear to be mesmerized by intrigue and suspense. For over two decades they have been following the perpetually evolving tale of “Cardinal Giuseppe Siri, pope in bondage and exile.” This fiction unfolds very much like any other soap opera and also like these serial tales, it keeps its followers coming back for more. In fact the very same story was circulated about Paul 6 in the 1970s, serving as a prelude to the “mystical appointment” of the Palmerian pretender pope, Clemente Dominguez-Gomez. (This is something that the younger crowd, still children in those days, may not even know.) Sadly, the Siri fiction trades on the hope of those following this fairy tale that there indeed is a painless and thought-free solution to the crisis in the Church and all they must do is accept it, without looking too closely at the facts. The privileged members of this “hidden” Church, dependent on the news of its actual workings from those “in the know,” must find the truth quite boring by comparison.

For those who do choose to check out the facts in this case, it soon becomes apparent that the “evidence” Siri promoters present as positive proof is fatally flawed. The “Siri facts” they expect inquirers to believe — inquirers referred to as “lunkheads” by one Siri researcher — somehow keep changing. Independent fact-finding easily confirms that Siri promoters did not even know the true identity of the senior conclave official on which their entire premise is based. That premise is: a) that Siri was elected, not Roncalli; b) that “white smoke,” (initially white streaked with grey, which later turned black, indicating that the necessary 2/3rds plus one majority had not been achieved) was sent up as a “sign” that Siri was elected; c) that Siri was prevented from accepting and threatened with death and the death of innocent Catholics if he made his election known and d) that the official who relayed this information to one “Prince Chigi” was none other than a “Msgr. Santoro,” who Siri chroniclers report told Chigi he must get the “white smoke” information to Vatican Radio immediately. Really?

The problem is, Msgr. Santoro was the chief conclave official at the 1939 election of Pope Pius XII; Msgr. Alberto Di Jurio was the senior conclave person officiating at Roncalli’s “election.” This is a matter of historical fact, documented in the Acta Apostolica Sedis and reported in newspapers written at the time of the 1958 election. So how could Santoro be said to have told Chigi any such thing? Chigi himself explained the problem with the smoke, a malfunction accredited to the stove used to send up the signal, at the time of the election. This malfunction was mentioned in later works on Roncalli, but is dismissed by Siri supporters as part of the “conspiracy” to hide the fact that Siri was actually elected. And once the conspiracy card is played, all bets are off and anything goes. Everything contrary to the “facts” of the case as stated, whether these facts are true or not, is dismissed as the work of enemies, and an enemy is anyone who dares to prove they have erred. This is true not only of the Siri bunch but of Conclavists and Traditionalists generally. Much like republicans and democrats, the various Trad groups forever butt heads in true partisan style. Discover an error and it is seldom addressed, far less corrected. And this is true regardless of whether the hole in the boat sinks their arguments or not. They proceed full steam ahead and even step up their pace with every error discovered and every point made by the opposing side. They bank on the fact that they have spun an appealing and even irresistible tale, one that those buying into their nonsense will be loathe to abandon. And amazingly many remain enthralled even in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary. But this cannot make Siri pope, and it does not satisfy the rules laid down for presenting evidence that will allow those truly searching for the truth to arrive at the necessary certainty.

Scholastic proofs

Although the philosophical system of St. Thomas Aquinas has been recklessly redefined by those outside the Church, Scholastic theology remains the same today as it was at the close of Pope Pius XII’s reign. It is a system of deductive reasoning from the truths of faith as defined by the continual magisterium and the various discussions of scholastic theologians. Much space has been dedicated on this board to the necessity of proceeding from scholastic principles, so there is no need to belabor this point. Needless to say, those promoting Siri as pope have not proceeded from scholastic principles. Private prophecy, media hype and other secular proofs do not appeal to the authority of the Church teaching throughout the ages, (unless one wishes to include the testimony of heretical NO “authorities” as Catholic). The determination of who is the true Pope lies demonstrably in the realm of dogmatic facts. It therefore clearly lies outside the matter of merely circumstantial evidence, since it must be determined by and be in agreement with dogma. While circumstantial evidence is always an adjunct to such inquiries, it can scarcely be used as the basis to determine the value of doctrinal matters themselves.

St. Thomas clearly taught that theology and philosophy are two separate sciences, “yet…they agree. They are distinct because…philosophy relies on reason alone [while] theology uses the truths derived from revelation, and also because there are some truths, the mysteries of Faith which belong [only] to theology. They must agree because God is the author of all truth, and it is impossible to think that He would teach in the natural order anything that would contradict what He teaches in the supernatural order. The recognition of these principles is the crowning achievement of Scholasticism,” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIII). The two elements must be joined, then, in order to make sense out of any situation, They must be joined using the reasoning process — logic and common sense — where the actual circumstances of the matter are concerned. But the final determination can only rest on that evidence required and mandated by the Church Herself. If we apply logic to the Siri situation, things simply do not compute. That Siri was Pope for 30 years, and never made this known, all the time publicly appearing as a functioning and faithful member of the Novus Ordo church, is absurd. It is theologically impossible and reason immediately detects this.

When a few true priests yet existed to opine on the Siri matter, they were all in favor of investigating the “possibility” that “recent papal conclaves involved irregularities.” (Ya think?!) They lambasted all others trying to do responsible research, and threw their weight behind Gary Giuffre and those funding him. One priest even warned against following “gurus” possessing Gnosis-like “secret knowledge,” or those who “take their cues from dubious apparitions and revelations…false mysticism in general.” And yet these are the very things that have emerged from what this priest described as the “responsible and serious scholarly study” of Mr. Giuffre. If priests themselves could not even manage to judge these things from the Church’s own teachings and practices, and themselves erred in a conspicuous way by supporting those who ignore these very teachings, why hasn’t anyone questioned this? The errors in Giuffre’s study make it incumbent on those wishing to sort this out to not only ask questions but to demand answers based solely on Church teaching. After examining what constitutes evidence, discrepancies existing in Giuffre’s arguments and those of others, from the beginning, will be examined.

Evidence and its worth

Giuffre says he possesses declassified U.S. government documents proving conclusively that Siri was elected in 1958. But others have been unable to locate these same documents. It hardly needs saying that the collusion of various British and U.S. government agencies with the NO church and especially with Giovanni Montini (Paul 6) — during and shortly after World War II and up to the present, as demonstrated in various modern historical works — place these declassified documents in serious doubt. While Can. 1814 states that civil documents are to be presumed genuine unless the contrary is proven by evident arguments, it would seem that the basis of such an argument can be found in the proofs of Montini’s covert operations, unknown to Pope Pius XII; also his suspected collusion in poisoning the pope in 1953. It also should be noted that the Freedom of Information Act did not come into existence until after Vatican 2. Therefore it seems highly improbable that the true Church would willingly accept as solid evidence documents proceeding from espionage and intrigue, especially when such documents can easily be the product of falsehood, forgery and elicitation by force or sheer chicanery.

So obviously such documents cannot be used as canonical proof, especially when they are questionable from the outset. Can. 1813 §1 lists as principle ecclesiastical documents those acts of the Supreme Pontiffs, Roman Curia and Ordinaries. The judge in an ecclesiastical court must pronounce in favor of the party whose contention is proved by these first-class public documents, upheld by the court. While reliable public documents may be admitted into evidence as stated in Canon Law, (Can. 1813, #2), documents of this nature are admissible only in the proper forum, i.e., in ecclesiastical courts over which the Roman Pontiff ultimately presides. The judge must pronounce in favor of the party whose contention is proved by papal and Curial documents verified by the court. Moreover, as in any civil court, wherever there exists considerable lag time between the crime and the presentation of the evidence and/or testimony of the witnesses, the evidence loses much of its value. Nearly all if not indeed all the principals in Siri’s purported election and the subsequent issue of these civil documents are now deceased and any remaining evidence is merely secondhand or amounts to hearsay. And in reality, only a general or at the very least an imperfect council could decide the true status of a serious claimant to the papacy. Such a claimant would need to be at least a priest who has not compromised the faith, elected by eligible cardinals or remaining faithful bishops. A general appeal to “Catholics,” who are not competent judges in such matters, or to the civil courts will not suffice.

Cases are thrown out of civil courts on a daily basis for lack of sufficient evidence and general councils often have deposed papal claimants as antipopes. Even the aspiring politician and Siri supporter Jim Condit has admitted that the evidence for Siri as Pope would not withstand the scrutiny of a judge and jury. So it scarcely would fare any better in an ecclesiastical court. Another problem Siri supporters ignore is the trustworthiness of their sources of information, (Giuffre, the U.S. government, Peter Tran Van Khoat, now a proven con-man who was never even a priest; certain dignitaries in Rome). As a schismatic, the supporter of a Church not in communion with the Roman Pontiff, and someone who has taken funds he did not use for the purpose intended, Giuffre’s testimony would be useless in an ecclesiastical court. Even Hutton Gibson, who funded Giuffre’s book presenting the case for Siri’s election, could not vouch for Giuffre. The July, 2005 issue of Gibson’s The War is Now describes an unfinished book (14 years in progress) and clearly registers Gibson’s misgivings about the Siri “papacy” and Giuffre’s recourse to questionable priests, even those ordained in the new rite, at St. Jude’s Shrine. But here even Gibson does not go far enough.

Gibson does not accept the Church’s teaching on jurisdiction, which would forbid even those ordained in the old rite functioning after the death of Pope Pius XII from ministering to the faithful. Peter Tran Van Khoat was one of those “priests” who once said Mass at St. Jude’s. Heir apparent to the Siri “legacy,” Khoat claimed he was ordained in 1967 by a bishop who could not grant him jurisdiction, since the usurper Paul 6 could not transfer such jurisdiction to the bishops. Later it was discovered he ran a secret business empire and was married with children (see here). Therefore Khoat was incapable of administering the sacraments because he was a lay person. And he was one of Giuffre’s major “go to” authorities.

To summarize this section, do those researching Siri’s “election” really think that the conspiracy they claim prevented him from reigning openly as pope simply blew up overnight? Do they not realize that for years this conspiracy had operated covertly within Rome itself and was poised to seize power the minute Pius XII breathed his last? So how do they think that “declassified documents” would ever be the equivalent of those documents issuing from the Holy Office, (when it really was the Holy Office), since these documents carry the greatest weight?

Which conclave: 1958 or 1963?

The major mix-up mentioned earlier concerning who was truly the senior conclave official at the 1958 election is enough to place the entire Siri affair in question. But even before this grave error was revealed, Siri supporters changed their minds on dates. And before one can even begin to make an analysis of the situation, it would need to be known which conclave allegedly elected Siri, and what circumstances during this conclave point to his supposed election.

1.) The original date for Siri’s election, provided by Giuffre, was the 1963 conclave. Abbe Henri Moreaux of France first suggested the 1963 date in an article published in the April, 1989 edition of Dan Jones’ Sangre de Cristo Newsnotes, Moreaux’s original article having appeared in 1984. In his “Keys of This Blood,” Malachi Martin also gives Siri’s election date as June of 1963. If 1963 is the correct date, Siri already had participated in the election of antipope Roncalli. The cardinals that participated in this election according to “Cum ex” could not have validly designated him. The smoke incident places Siri at the 1958 election, or rather is used to claim he was elected in 1958. Ugo Groppi and Julius S. Lombardi provided an alternative explanation for the white smoke that issued in the 1958 conclave without the usual announcement a pope had been elected. These authors state that an individual phoned Osservatore Romano from the “the Loggia delle Dame above the entrance of the bronze portal leading into Vatican City…From this vantage point it would not have been impossible to hear, if the voices were loud enough, something being confidentially discussed behind the windows of the conclave enclosure. The news of Cardinal Ottaviani’s “election” was sent out by the press agencies but then prudently stopped,” (“Above All A Shepherd”). It appears that this episode may have been “borrowed” by Siri proponents and used as the basis for the Siri theory, Siri’s name being substituted for Ottaviani’s. So why was no one investigating the election of Ottaviani? Why Siri? All this proves is that election irregularities probably existed in 1958 and that whatever the nature of these irregularities were, they did not point to Siri.

The 1963 date, however, magically changed to 1958 after “Will the Catholic Church Survive…?” proved that John 23 was a heretic in March, 1990, and it became apparent to Siri supporters that those promoting a “papal election” would see it through. It is not inappropriate to comment here that several Traditionalists at that time themselves suggested that the sudden push to prove Siri was pope, despite his demise in May of 1989, was adversely impacted by the approaching “election.” Not that it was not proper and necessary for Traditionalists to oppose this false election, for it certainly was. But in dismissing it out of hand, they jumped from the frying pan into the fire. The resultant haste that subsequently fueled the gathering of the documentation necessary to prove Siri was a possible pope-elect may account for many mistakes that were made in its collection, including the melodramatic ad in the Houston paper summoning Siri’s “cardinals and Cardinal Camerlengo.”

If “Cum ex…” had been used as a standard for determining Siri’s orthodoxy (and it was readily available); if all the same criteria used to declare the V2 usurpers as antipopes had been used to determine Siri’s status and eligibility, even after his alleged 1958 “election,” wouldn’t this alone have disqualified him? Of course it would have; for both the 1958 election (after the fact) and the1963 election. And now we have discovered a second reason why the Siri crowd, after running a series of articles in Sangre de Cristo Newsnotes for over a year claiming Siri was elected in 1963, suddenly did an about face and changed that date to 1958. It then was necessary for them to backtrack and re-confabulate. For with the 1958 date, there was no question of Siri’s acceptance of John XXIII as a valid pontiff, no signing of documents at the first session of the false V2 council to deal with; Siri’s “line” could be said to continue untainted directly from Pope Pius XII. Siri supporters even admit Roncalli was a false pope, as they would need to do once the date was changed, to prove their man “pope.” No, there was something else at work here, something not yet understood.

2) There can be no doubt that Siri participated in the election of the proven heretics, John 23 through JP2, AS A CARDINAL. He thereby disqualified himself from voting in any subsequent elections or presenting as papabile at said elections, (Can. 2391 #1). It was no secret that Pope Pius XII labeled Roncalli ‘s Vatican file with the tag “Suspected Modernist,” as reported in “Pope John XXIII,” by Paul Johnson and elsewhere. And Siri could have separated himself easily from Roncalli without fear of censure, since “Cum ex…” states that those who separate from the obedience of such heretics will not be penalized and may even call upon the secular authorities to unseat the usurper. So why did Siri not cite this document and proceed to inveigh upon any sympathetic civil authority? It is reported that he had at his beck and call a potent coterie of “wealthy industrialists and…powerful right-wing elements,” which he mysteriously failed to mobilize in defense of his supposed papacy and to publicly condemn the false VII doctrines he at first protested, (“Vatican II,” Xavier Rynne, pg. 571). Why would a Cardinal not know of “Cum ex’s” existence, when it is the basis for some of the most important legislation in the Code? And if the document was not known to exist in 1958, why did Siri not jump at the chance to use “Cum ex…” once it was discovered in the early 1970s?

Gary Giuffre’s bosom buddy, Dan Jones knew it existed in the late 1970s and Giuffre’s boss, Hutton Gibson, also knew the bull existed in the early 1980s. So since this is the case, why wasn’t Siri familiar with this document? Is it possible that, as Veritas stated in its Feb.-March 1977 “A Packet from Mexico” issue, Rev. Saenz already had spoken with Siri? “We did hear that Fr. Saenz went several times to Rome to talk with the older Cardinals familiar with Montini’s…background and who are in the sensitive position to legally assemble a conclave to depose the usurper Paul 6,” Veritas staff wrote on page eight of this issue. “But Fr. Saenz was not successful in his effort.” In a flyer issued by “Catholics Forever” to promote Rev. Saenz’ book “The New Montinian Church,” the editor also verified Saenz’ contact with these “older cardinals.” If Siri truly had been chosen in any of the elections that followed the death of Pope Pius XII, wouldn’t Rev. Saenz have relayed this somehow? Would it not have prevented him from writing his “Sede Vacante”? Or was there some reason that certain Traditionalists wished to distance themselves from Rev. Saenz-Arriaga?

Which Khoat story: 1988 or 1989?

Peter Tran Van Khoat initially told Gary Giuffre and certain clerics at St. Jude’s Shrine that Siri denied three times that he was pope during a visit to Rome Khoat made in the spring of 1988, where he met with Siri. Yet in a conversation with Jim Condit a year later, at one time published online, Khoat told Condit that not only was Siri elected, but that he had been elected in 1958. How convenient that these claims are made after Siri’s death, and also after the publication and circulation of “Will the Catholic Church Survive…?” Khoat also apparently made claims of some sort that the Church either would soon have or already had a true pope issuing from Siri’s “line.” This claim insinuated, as evidenced by the advertisement placed in the Houston Post in the summer of 1990, that Khoat was the “Cardinal Camerlengo” or in charge of a new election (or was at least a cardinal), and was summoning and did summon other “Cardinals” for a supposed “election.” This is verified by the publication and circulation of Khoat’s “New Event of Man’s History” In Dan Jones Sangre de Cristo Newsnotes, July 1990 issue. So even though Siri’s “line” had not been officially established as valid, according to the teachings of the Church, and the details not even released that would establish it, the “Siri fact” was “proven.”

One witness priest overseas, pointed to by the Siri camp itself, said that Siri declined his election because he did not feel worthy to follow in Pope Pius XII’s footsteps. This strengthens the evidence that Siri declined and did NOT ever accept the election. But Khoat later denies this, and based entirely on his say-so, without any signed and witnessed documents from Siri, on the strength, instead, of hearsay testimony and rumor, the Siri theory became what it is today. In 20 years it has remained only an unsubstantiated theory simply because the many contradictions surrounding its major premise cannot be explained: that Siri’s confirmed election and his resultant acceptance of that election, which alone could make him pope, actually occurred and can be proven to have occurred. Also, that he was able to accept such an election as an indisputable member of the Church. His supporters adamantly refuse to consider Siri’s orthodoxy in relation to his “election,” even in light of irrefutable proofs. The very criteria which allowed Traditionalists to clear the field for Siri — the arguments used initially to prove the V2 popes invalid — were never applied to Siri himself. Siri’s denials of the faith are easily accessible via the Internet, for those who really seek the truth. The fact that he signed V2 documents alone, the factor used in judging the orthodoxy of every other V2 cardinal or bishop, is proof enough. In fact far from being orthodox, Siri was definitely a cardinal of the Novus Ordo church, not the Catholic Church. Siri’s “supporters,” (or at least those who support his shadowy and equally dubious “successor”), are truly chasing phantoms, and to prove this, the following is provided.

Siri and the Nazi “ratlines”

It was well known in Roman circles that Siri hated Communism. But did this hatred propel him in directions that placed him in collusion with Giovanni Montini?

In the last days of WWII, Cardinal Maglione, in charge of Pontifical assistance to refugees died and was replaced by Montini. Montini then entered into cooperation with one Bishop Alois Hudal, of Austria, a Nazi sympathizer stationed in Rome. In his 1976 book Romanische Tagebucher, Hudal admits that he helped war criminals, but never claims he did so with Pius XII’s knowledge or encouragement. While, many writers have alleged that Hudal and Pius XII were close, Hudal complains about Vatican officials in his book, Pius XII included, accusing them of favoring the Allies. According to the blog Commonwealth, the Vatican has always acknowledged that “Bishop Alois Hudal of Austria, a Nazi sympathizer stationed in Rome, and a Croatian priest named Krunoslav Draganovic, helped some war criminals.” But there is no evidence that Pius XII knew about or cooperated with these activities. “It is this Austrian bishop who, more than any other figure, did so much to give the Catholic Church its reputation as a Nazi conduit,” (“Hunting Evil,” by Guy Walters). “The good news for Catholics,” Walters said on his website in August 2009, “is that Pius XII must be treated as innocent.” Walters makes it clear, however, that he personally believes the Pope knew the ratlines existed.

The Croatian, Mgr. Krunoslav Draganovic and Hudal were the main players in the rat line operation, a series of tunnels that reportedly ran right up to the vicinity of the Vatican. Draganovic was a chaplain at the Jasenovac concentration camps in Croatia, where many atrocities took place during the war. According to John and Mark Aarons in their work “Unholy Trinity,” where they quote the Nazi Ladislaus Farago, “It was Montini who allowed Hudal access to Vatican passports and other identity and travel documents, which he then used to aid his Nazi friends…There is some circumstantial evidence in the American diplomatic records to support the claim that Montini was deliberately aiding Hudal’s Nazi-smuggling…” (Ibid.; pp. 34-35.)” Nazi war criminal Walter Rauff was a close friend of Hudal’s. The Aarons report that writers for the French magazine “Cercle Noir” (with ties to the Priory of Zion, according to authors Lincoln, Leigh and Baigent) link Rauff to “Archbishop Giuseppe Siri of Genoa…a key player in the Nazi smuggling operation.”

Rauff was probably the moneyman behind the smuggling endeavor, which was directed by British Intelligence operatives James Angleton and John Dulles. One of Siri’s secretaries is said to have helped fund the smuggling operation. But the Aarons’ speculate that this only augmented the funds Rauff already had in his possession from various money laundering and counterfeiting operations. The Aarons write: “Some of the most wanted Nazi war criminals passed from Rauff in Milan, to Bishop Hudal at the Anima in Rome and then on to Archbishop Siri in Genoa. Here they boarded ships and left for new lives in South America…” (Ibid.; pp. 39-40.) Clearly the operation was one arranged by Montini with the help of British Intelligence, who he worked for throughout WWII according to many different sources. This operation later resulted in a suit against the Vatican by Holocaust survivors to recover money made on properties owned by Croation Jews, sold for profit by the Nazis, with the profits then deposited in the Vatican Bank.

The publicity about the ratlines and this lawsuit is what fueled the accusations against Pope Pius XII concerning collaboration with the Nazis. And yet the blame for this cooperation with Hitler’s former SS rested instead on Montini, Hudal, Siri, and a pack of criminals, surprising bedfellows to say the least. Is it possible that Siri’s powerful right-wing industrial friends were Nazi sympathizers, that their friendships were forged, perhaps, during and after the war? Why would Siri have agreed to become involved in such an enterprise? And why was he involved with Montini on any level if he was a true “Traditionalist”? It should be duly noted here that if Siri researchers use declassified and like documents to support his election, they also must consider equally these documents on the existence of the ratlines, a fact NO officials have already confirmed.

Siri was deposed for heresy “pre-election”

At the beginning of the false Vatican II council, Siri and 18 others addressed a letter to John 23 “expressing their ‘disquietude over false doctrines’ being aired at the council,” (Vatican Council II, Xavier Rynne, pg. 125). Eventually five bishops withdrew their signatures from the letter and Siri was among the 14 who remained. Nothing, however — no standing protest, no withdrawal from participation in the council, no public outcry by this group — ever marked Siri and his conservative faction as truly orthodox and willing to defend the Faith at all costs. In fact, at the council’s conclusion, despite Siri’s known old-school stance, Siri and his friend, fellow conservative Ruffini sat quietly and submissively at the right hand of Paul 6 as the antipope spoke to the Italian bishops during a semi-private audience. “His talk…dealt principally with the attitude [the bishops] would be expected to adopt after the council was over…It was obvious from the Pope’s tone that he expected compliance also from [Siri and Ruffini]…” (Rynne, pg. 571). Another Italian bishop (Carli), an aide to Card. Ottaviani, had threatened mutiny at one of the closing sessions, but was silenced by the soothing words accredited to Siri in an earlier conference a week prior to the bishop’s meeting. Siri reportedly told a priest at this conference that the council decisions “are not definitions; they will never bind us.” According to Rynne, even after the council closed Carli remained distressed, threatening to light himself on fire Buddhist-style in protest to all that the council destroyed.

But Siri remained silent. As mentioned above, friends in high places would have supported him had he really wished to challenge the powers that be. And his stated assumption that the faithful would not be bound by Vatican II decrees later was exploded by Paul 6. In a general audience Jan.12, 1966 Montini announced that the Council’s teachings always enjoy at least “the authority of the supreme ordinary Magisterium. This ordinary Magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to be accepted with docility and sincerity by all the faithful, in accordance with the mind of the Council on the nature and aims of the individual documents.” Siri had to be aware that a group of bishops had rejected Paul 6’s interdenominational prayer service with all council attendees at the end of the council as heresy and communicatio in sacris. He was most likely aware of the comment made during the council by Msgr. Antonio Piolanti, Rector Magnificus at the Lateran University, that “there are rationalist theologians going about Rome seducing innocent foreign bishops,” or the comment Piolanti made to one of his classes: “Remember, the pope can be deposed if he falls into heresy,” but Rynne dismisses this remark as a joke. Time magazine’s “Man of the Year” article for Jan. 4, 1963 reported both these comments, so they were widely read.

Siri had support; he had allies to rely upon both before and after the council. Siri knew, but he failed to deliver; and so did his constituents. And finally there is the matter of Pope Pius XII’s failure to name a Cardinal Camerlengo, the head cardinal who, after the death of the pope organizes and calls the next papal election. Siri supporters have seized upon this fact as an indication that Pius XII, whose last appointed cardinal just happened to be Siri was signaling the world that Siri was his choice as a successor. But this does not follow. The best indication of who will succeed the Pope is whoever reigns as Vatican (Pro-) Secretary of State. Rampolla was Leo XIII’s secretary, and was very nearly elected. Pacelli served in this position under Pope Pius XI. Montini was Pope Pius XII’s secretary until his dismissal in 1953, and there have been other instances of this throughout history. None of the biographies written on Pope Pius XII name Siri as his successor-in-grooming, or for that matter mention Siri at all. Paul Murphy, who wrote the biography of Pope Pius XII’s dear friend and assistant, Sr. Pascalina, relates that the nun discussed potential successors of Pius with Cardinal Spellman the day of Pius’ death. Siri was never mentioned as a possible successor, nor Ottaviani, although Ruffini, Siri’s friend, was mentioned as a possibility. Sr. Pascalina had no use for Ruffini, who was known to be the intimate friend of Don Calgaro Vizzini, head of the Sicilian Mafia and one of the most powerful men in Italy, (Murphy, pg. 233).

Siri’s name is nowhere to be found in the book. Sr. Pascalina did not feel that anyone could replace Pacelli. Murphy himself noted that certainly no successor could “be trusted to carry on the strictly doctrinaire ecclesiastical policies of Pius XII,” (pg. 283). A generation raised on fairy tales with happy-ever-after endings would understandably hope that despite all indications to the contrary, the knight in shining armor soon will arrive to rescue them from the dungeon and restore the kingdom. Siri’s “successor” is either waiting in the wings, prepared to appear on cue, or Siri theorists will revert to Bd. Anna Maria Taigi’s revelation that Sts. Peter and Paul will appoint the true Pope following the three days darkness. It is even possible that Bp. Pintonello, who some maintain participated in the election of Victor von Pentz, (Linus II) will be identified as the man appointed “pope” by Siri before his death. Siri supporters will sweetly explain that Pintonello resigned as “pope” in favor of Linus’ 1994 election and then consecrated Linus bishop following his election. The clue to the solution of this puzzle lies in Hutton Gibson’s comment concerning Giuffre’s refusal to consult Countess Elizabeth Gerstner concerning the likelihood of Siri’s election in 1958. Gerstner worked in the Vatican prior to Pope Pius XII’s death, founded the Una Voce movement in Europe and later orchestrated Linus’ election, (after requesting a copy of the book “Will the Catholic Church Survive the 20th Century?”)

Canon 1325, 1917 Code: “The faithful are bound to profess their faith publicly, whenever silence, subterfuge or their manner of acting would otherwise entail an implicit denial of faith, a contempt of religion an insult to God, or scandal to their neighbor.”

Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, para. 6: “If ever at any time it becomes clear that any…Cardinal, or likewise any Roman Pontiff…before their promotion or elevation…has strayed from the faith or fallen into heresy…his promotion or elevation shall be null, valid and void.”

It is clear from what is presented below that Joseph Siri publicly accepted John 23 and all the other antipopes as true popes, thereby committing public heresy and incurring deposition from his office as cardinal, (Can. 188§4). Therefore he was never “pope” himself, nor could he even have been considered papabile. Remember that one instance of heresy is enough to incur deposition and ipso facto excommunication.

“Holy Ideals and Celestial Presence,” by Card. Joseph Siri, Rome 1965: “The great mission assigned by Providence to John XXIII of holy memory…was that of bringing back among men a more comprehensive, brotherly and trustful opening in their relationships with each other…He, the Pope, always spoke of faith, hope, humility, obedience…He put up with honors, but only in as far as they were attributed to Christ’s Vicar…”

“In God’s Name,” by David Yallop: “It is a matter of record that Siri presided over the nine-day funeral observances or “Novemdiales” for antipopes Roncalli, Montini and Luciani. Yallop notes in his work: “During the series of nine memorial masses [for Paul 6]…homilies were delivered by, among others, Cardinal Siri. The man who had blocked and obstructed Pope Paul at every turn pledged himself to the aims of the late pontiff.”

“The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the 20th Century,” No. 304, December 1997:”If one were to identify in the early ’60s one event – and one only! – that marked the approach of the spiritual chastisement predicted in the third Secret, it would clearly have to be the opening speech of Vatican II, which assigned the Council as its programme the Reform of the Church herself, rather than the correction of the errors and faults of her members. The reaction of the renowned Cardinal Siri – or, to be more exact, the absence of his reaction on this occasion – clearly illustrates the failure of the hierarchy predicted in the third Secret. On the following day in fact he wrote in his private diary, “I did not understand very much in the Pope’s speech. In the little I did understand I found an excellent opportunity of making a great act of mental obedience… This evening I carefully analyzed the Pope’s speech so that I might align [sic] my way of thinking with that of the Vicar of Christ.”

“The Church, the Council and the Unconscious: How Hidden Forces Shaped the Catholic Church,” by James Arraj: “Cardinal Giuseppe Siri wrote in his diary of the need to study the ‘historical propaedeutics’ of the errors that are resurfacing. He suggests not only looking at what Benigni had to say about them, but adding reflections on ‘the pathology that affects theological studies when various methodologies derived from idealism, historicism, rationalism are introduced. For modernism is creeping in and is supported by historical criticism.’” And when, we would like to know, did Siri ever stand up and denounce this “modernism”?!

“Twelve Council Fathers,” by Walter Abbot, S.J., (quoting Siri):

“It may take 50 years before the full achievements of the Council are discerned.” (Is this the true but falsely re-written statement made by Siri and generally circulated by his supporters that it would take 50 years to undo the work of the council?!) “But certain fruits are evident already, and they are important. First, the Church sees more clearly now the work that is cut out for it for the next 100 years. And, as the Holy Father himself has indicated, the approach is a pastoral one…It was a wise and provident thing that we began the work of the Council with the liturgy. It struck a very positive note. It went to the heart of things.”

Other considerations

Whether Siri was elected or not, he violated his sworn oath to Pope Pius XII who made him a cardinal. The oath reads: “For the praise of Almighty God and the honor of the Apostolic See, receive the red hat…By this you are to understand that you must show yourself fearless, even to the shedding of blood, in making our holy Faith respected, in securing peace for the Christian people and in promoting the welfare of the Roman Church. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.” Whether during or after the Conclave, Siri showed himself unworthy of the cardinalate he received. He also, then, would be a candidate considered unworthy for election to the papacy. In his 1939 work “Canonical Elections,” Rev. Anscar Parsons described as unworthy for election those whose lives are “sinful or scandalous.” Violating a solemn oath dependent upon receiving a particular office is definitely scandalous, and is a mortal sin according to Rev. McHugh and Callan’s two-volume work on moral theology. “There is no doubt that a mortal sin is committed when one…unjustly refuses to live up to a sworn engagement made under oath, for this is irreligion and injustice in a serious matter.” This is true especially when it entails the welfare of the entire Church of Christ and the expulsion of a proven heretic.

Cardinal Siri’s non accepto of the papacy, if indeed it ever occurred, may have been the result of force and/or fear. But Siri had sworn to divest himself of this fear and be injured or die rather than damage the reverence owed to Holy Faith and the welfare of the Church. Canon 1317 (1917 Code) states: “The person who has freely sworn to do something is bound by a special obligation of religion to accomplish what he has promised under oath…An oath, taken without violence and deceit, by which a person renounces some private good or favor given him by law itself, must be observed whenever it does not involve the ruin of the soul,” and obviously holding to his oath would have been the only way to prevent the ruin of Siri’s soul. Siri may well have denied his loyalty to the Church of Pope Pius XII and declared his allegiance to the anti- Church in violating his oath. Canon 1321 declares that: “An oath must be strictly interpreted according to law and according to the intention of the person taking the oath — or, if the latter should act deceitfully, according to the intention of him to whom the oath was made.”

There can be no doubt that Pope Pius XII wished to bind Siri absolutely by this oath. Neither, then is there any doubt that if he indeed was elected and chose to remain “hidden” in violating his oath, Siri grossly insulted and denied the “praise of Almighty God and the honor of the Apostolic See.” This being the case, it would seem that he may have committed the most grievous act of treason possible against his own Church, and thereby forfeited his status as a member of that Church. Siri was a Cardinal, and in “Cum ex,” Pope Paul IV holds Cardinals, bishops and priests to a far higher standard than the laity in matters of faith. He cannot be accorded diminished capacity, because in freely surrendering his right to be intimidated by force or fear in his oath to Pope Pius XII, he voluntarily removed this factor mitigating his guilt, (Can. 2199). Canon 2200 states that “Given the external violation of a law, the evil will is presumed in the internal forum.”

Siri was required by Canon Law to establish juridical documentation of his election prior to his death. Such documentation cannot of its nature be kept a secret. According to Giuffre, Siri said he could not discuss the papal elections in question because “I am bound by the secret.” This comment was a veiled indication of the answer to all Giuffre’s research, but it was an answer he did not understand. This is an admission that Siri had participated in the elections only as a cardinal and considered himself still a cardinal, under the obedience of the NO church. All the cardinals participating in the election are bound by the secret save the one elected. Siri was never elected; either that or he declined election and never accepted within the specified time period. Had he indeed accepted, official notice of this would have been made. Woywod-Smith write: “The acceptance of the office and the choice of a name are then certified by document,” (commentary on Pope Pius XII’s “Vacantis Apostolica Sedis”). The pope-elect receives universal jurisdiction upon acceptance of his election and may immediately exercise it. The Church must always establish the personal identity of the new Pontiff and his chosen name, as these constitute dogmatic facts. To date, no pope ever has reigned in secret, unknown to the majority of his subjects, and the history of the papacy is one of persecutions, invasions, captivity, imprisonment and martyrdom.

Something also should be said here concerning the numerous revelations used to support Siri’s putative “election.” Rev. Adolphe Tanquerey writes that the assent given to private revelations is “not an act of Catholic faith but one of human faith, based upon the fact that these revelations are probable and worthy of credence,” (“The Spiritual Life”). Pope Benedict XIV states in his teaching governing beatification that such an assent is to be made “according to the rules of prudence,” for these rules dictate that such revelations are “probable and worthy of pious belief.” These teachings say nothing concerning the actual application of various prophecies to a certain event or individual. Such an application would be prudent only if the individual in question was unquestionably Catholic. If not such application is impossible. To employ the extensive use of prophecy to “document” anything dependent on the laws and teachings of the Church for belief is to circumvent those laws and teachings and make an appeal to the imagination and emotions rather than the intellect. The Church does not condemn the use of intuition in certain matters provided that such a use is secondary to the application of Catholic teachings concerning the faith. But when those norms determining what is to be believed concerning faith have excluded such an application, it is contrary to faith itself to apply them to those who lack it.

Conclusion

Any researcher can make mistakes, even in matters concerning faith. In these times the confusion surrounding the crisis in the Church, the absence of reliable instruction in the faith, differences in language and culture and the false teachings that abound all work against the efforts of anyone seeking the truth. The problem doesn’t lie in making the mistake; the problem lies in admitting and correcting it. Anyone can fall, but not all rise after falling. It is never too late to dust oneself off and stand up, but few choose to do so. Fear of being discredited and losing face are usually the reasons they don’t. They are not valid reasons. We all have an obligation to make the truth known no matter the cost. And we are bound to save others from any errors we may have spread, even if we had no intention to deliberately deceive them. Siri supporters can scarcely condemn the NO on one hand and endorse Siri on the other. Siri was undeniably a part of the V2 church. He had less excuse than even Lefebvre, Thuc or other “bishops” by far for his actions, exceeding them in dignity. Siri’s case was worth investigating, but that investigation has only produced more questions and precious few answers. Pope St. Pius X taught that the assent of Faith cannot rest ultimately on “an aggregation of probabilities,” (DZ 2025). One must be able to arrive at certitude in such a serious matter as whether a man is truly pope. Sadly, the Siri affair has succeeded only in proving that certitude can be reached — certitude that Siri abandoned the Catholic faith long ago.

In unquestionably recognizing Roncalli as pope in his public writings; in delivering Paul 6’s funeral oration and pledging himself to fulfill this antipope’s agenda, long after the destruction in the Church was painfully clear, Siri left no doubt that he embraced the heretical teachings of the false Vatican II Council, the institution of the Novus Ordo Missae and the heretical changes in the rites of the Sacraments instituted by Christ. Roncalli’s insertion of St. Joseph in the Canon violated the Divine Traditions of the Church. The insertion of “for all” into the Canon likewise violated these Traditions, contradicted the Council of Trent and falsified the very words found in Divine revelation as defined by a Council of the Church. That a true Pope, bound to guard the flock against the very wolves that consumed it, could somehow consider his own life more precious than his lambs’ is not only preposterous — it is contrary to Divine revelation. Was it not Christ Himself who told us: “The good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep,” later fulfilling this prophecy with His Passion and death? And did He not also predict that once the pastor has been stuck the sheep would be scattered? We will know the voice of the Good Shepherd when he comes. Until then, we can only pray and watch.

What the popes teach about the Jews

by T. Stanfill Benns | Feb 9, 2023

© Copyright 2014, T. Stanfill Benns (All emphasis within quotes is the author’s unless indicated otherwise.)

We would be remiss if we did not add to the first article on the Jews the stated teachings of the Continual Magisterium on this matter, although it cannot and does not change what was said initially. One critic recently alleged that the quote from Pope Pius IX on the synagogue of Satan was taken out of context in the previous site article. Below it is presented in its entirety. It is obvious that the pope here gave a different meaning to this Scripture phrase than that offered by scripture commentators on Apoc. 2:9 and 3:9. For these passages refer to the Jews as they existed after Christ’s death, not as they exist today. Unlike the modern writers and teachers of today, the popes did not speak idle words, nor bandy about Scripture passages as so many handy slogans or catchphrases. The pope indicates that this synagogue is drawn from many different sects — schismatical, heretical, Masonic and otherwise. Yet he credits these machinations primarily to the Masons, not the Jews, although certainly at least the more radical factions of the Jews must be counted among the sects mentioned and no one is questioning their contributions to Freemasonry. The Pope is clear, however, that this is a multi-faceted effort involving ALL those opposed to the Church.

As noted in the previous article, racially the Talmudists are not Jews; this Leon de Poncins, joining David Goldstein, points out in his “Judaism and the Vatican.” Nor are they Jews by religion, because the Old Law ceased to exist with the coming of Christ and destruction of the Temple. As Rev. Heidt relates in his commentary and Pope Pius XI taught, Christians are now Israel or “spiritual Semites.” Today’s Jews are, for the most part, Jews culturally and by nationality. There are those among their enemies who still believe they are Jews by race and oppose them on a racial basis or oppose them for whatever remains of their Jewishness racially and its cultural expression. This is why in Mit Brennender Sorge, Pope Pius XI condemned those championing only the white race as the true race, since Hitler condemned those “tainted” by Jewish blood.

The “bible” of most Traditionalists today who advocate an open opposition of the Jews is The Plot Against the Church, written by “Maurice Pinay,” (Anacleto Gonzalez Flores, presumably with the help of Fr. Joacquin Saenz-Arriaga). I corresponded with him for many years during the 1980s. He was a physician and a long-time Traditionalist, having coursed through the Lefebvre sect and other Traditionalist organizations before becoming sede vacante. He is best known for his article printed in Veritas in the late 1970s “Packet from Mexico,” in defense of Lefebvre. He was a leading member of the Union of Trento, an organization which is now basically defunct. In evaluating his assessment of the crises in the Church here, I in no way intend to discredit his efforts or his work, but I do definitely dispute some of his research findings and the course on which he and others set the remnant Church in the wake of Vatican 2. As I have stated before, had priests involved from the outset and good lay people truly understood the situation and had they really known their faith, Traditionalism as we know it today would never have come into existence. That so many indulged their pet peeves for so long, myself included, accounts for the tragic loss of faith we see today.

Meaning of the term “synagogue of Satan”

In Pinay’s work, the “synagogue of Satan” is referred to repeatedly but misleadingly in reference to the Jews. We say misleadingly, for while the scripture commentators (several commentaries were consulted) interpret this phrase in Apocalypse 2:9 and 3:9 as the more obstinate Jews of Apostolic times, they do not speculate on the specific identity of these false Jews as they might exist in our own time. The Jews of apostolic times were the synagogue of Satan because they rejected Christ and looked for another Messias. Freemasons are false Jews because they embrace the Kabbala, the Jews’ book of magic, yet are not, strictly speaking, of the Jewish faith or race. Some believe pre-Christian gnostics, who were not racial Jews, infiltrated the Jewish religion just as they have the Christian religion; if so, they were not Semites then and cannot be Semites now. They pretended to be Jewish just as they later pretended to be Catholic, gutting the Jewish church prior to Christ’s birth much as they gutted the Church in our day; hence our Lord’s condemnation of the Pharisees. Later in the 740s A.D., the Ashkenazi Jews, largely Russian, would surface who were only converts to the Jewish faith, not RACIAL Jews. This could explain the biblical reference in Apoc. 2:9 to “Those who say they are Jews and are not but are the Synagogue of Satan.”

The papal edicts against the Jews slowed down beginning in the 1600s. Freemasonry in the form of Rosicrucianism surfaced in that century. The popes began issuing their condemnations of Freemasonry in the 1700s; things were becoming much clearer, especially following the American and French Revolutions and the emergence of the Illuminati. By the 1800s they had become clearer still, allowing Pope Pius IX to identify the synagogue of Satan today as mainly Freemasonry, not just the Jews. We see this in the excerpts from his encyclical below.

Etsi multa, (On The Church In Italy, Germany, and Switzerland); Pope Pius IX encyclical, Nov. 21, 1873:

27. “…Some years past, a most severe war was begun against the Church, its institutions, and the rights of this Apostolic See. If We were to pursue these matters, We would find much to say; since, however, because of the gravity of the situation, they cannot be touched on in passing, We will treat them more thoroughly at another time and place.
28. “Some of you may perchance wonder that the war against the Catholic Church extends so widely. Indeed each of you knows well the nature, zeal, and intention of sects, whether called Masonic or some other name. When he compares them with the nature, purpose, and amplitude of the conflict waged nearly everywhere against the Church, he cannot doubt but that the present calamity must be attributed to their deceits and machinations for the most part. For from these the synagogue of Satan is formed which draws up its forces, advances its standards, and joins battle against the Church of Christ.”

If the synagogue of Satan already was comprised of just the Jews, as Pinay and others hold, how could it be in the process of formation under the flags of Masonic sects as described above by Pope Pius IX? Catholics are bound to hold the teachings of the popes as binding in conscience, not those of laymen not even writing with approval. That Pinay’s work has been widely read and disseminated by Traditionalists and others, and is now available on CD is common knowledge. Many quote this book and its sources exclusively as proof that Catholics must join them in outspoken opposition to the current “Jewish menace.” But if they really believe the Jews are solely responsible for destroying the Church, why are they on the muscle now when the deed already has been accomplished? They can’t very well lock the barn door after the horse has escaped, not with any hope of recapturing the horse, anyway. And if they really want to drive their point home, why rely almost solely on a book never approved by the Church, written by one or more persons in all probability prejudiced in their views, not only concerning Jewry, but even concerning the papacy?

Crypto-Jews in Mexico

Since Vatican 2, a good number of Mexicanos, previously professing to be Catholic, have confessed that their families, for long generations, were Catholic in name only and secretly were practicing Jews. This may have been the result of Marranos who immigrated to Mexico from Spain (Sephardim Jews). Such articles have appeared in national publications, with one Novus Ordo “priest” in New Mexico even admitting his dual allegiance to both religions. Recently this author received a detailed commentary on Jewish and Masonic infiltration of the Mexican Church, naming names and pointing fingers, even at present-day Traditionalist clergy. Having been victims of this infiltration for some time, and obviously having been aware of this situation for many decades, the authors of The Plot Against the Church could not help but be embittered over the fact, whereas most American Catholics were not even aware of it until recently.

This is especially true since Mexico’s Masonic (Pinay aka Flores would say Jewish) government was the cause of the Cristero revolt, and his (Gonzales-Flores’) father was one of the martyrs of that revolt. Victimized again when the betrayal of the Church became a done deal in the 1960s, those still willing to fight laid their cards on the table. But along with that play came an ingrained distrust of the papacy, not only present but past. Such ill will was nurtured among Traditionalists in general, but especially by Mexicanos, who feel that Pope Pius XI more or less threw the Cristeros under the bus. Traces of this resentment can easily be detected in Pinay’s work, especially in view of the fact that he quotes the provincial and ecumenical councils primarily, not the popes, as the sources of his research. This may be an indication that like so many Traditionalists, Flores entertained Gallicanist tendencies. He blames Jewish influence for the exclusion of conciliar condemnations of the Jews from the 1917 Code of Canon Law, but in this he is mistaken.

Any decrees of ecumenical councils, particularly those canons stigmatized with an anathema still bind, since the pope must approve all such decrees. Why was this not pointed out? Pinay’s main objection is that the bishops and the priests not willing to energetically combat and condemn the Jews were ordered excommunicated by the Third Lateran Council and the Code removed this excommunication. He gives the paragraphs as XXVI and XXVII, but says they condemn heresies and heretics, when strictly speaking, Jews are regarded as apostates, (see pgs. 580-582, Feb. 1967 edition of his work). Quotes below from this very council disprove both the fact that the Code removes such excommunications as well as the fact that the council ordered the faithful to actively combat the Jews. It was not the Jews that the Third Lateran Council ordered both clergy and faithful to battle at all costs but the Cathars; “faithful Christians” are encouraged to “take up arms against them.” It is true that the previous paragraph, 26 addresses abuses by the Jews, but there is no indication that the Jews are included among those mentioned in the succeeding paragraph.

Third Lateran Council — 1179 A.D.
“26. Jews and Saracens are not to be allowed to have Christian servants in their houses, either under pretense of nourishing their children or for service or any other reason. Let those be excommunicated who presume to live with them. We declare that the evidence of Christians is to be accepted against Jews in every case, since Jews employ their own witnesses against Christians, and that those who prefer Jews to Christians in this matter are to lie under anathema, since Jews ought to be subject to Christians and to be supported by them on grounds of humanity alone. If any by the inspiration of God are converted to the Christian faith, they are in no way to be excluded from their possessions, since the condition of converts ought to be better than before their conversion. If this is not done, we enjoin on the princes and rulers of these places, under penalty of excommunication, the duty to restore fully to these converts the share of their inheritance and goods.

“27. As St. Leo says, though the discipline of the church should be satisfied with the judgment of the priest and should not cause the shedding of blood, yet it is helped by the laws of Catholic princes so that people often seek a salutary remedy when they fear that a corporal punishment will overtake them. For this reason, since in Gascony and the regions of Albi and Toulouse and in other places the loathsome heresy of those whom some call the Cathars, others the Patarenes, others the Publicani, and others by different names, has grown so strong that they no longer practise their wickedness in secret, as others do, but proclaim their error publicly and draw the simple and weak to join them, we declare that they and their defenders and those who receive them are under anathema, and we forbid under pain of anathema that anyone should keep or support them in their houses or lands or should trade with them…With regard to the Brabanters, Aragonese, Navarrese, Basques, Coterelli and Triaverdini {17}…they should be subject in every way to the same sentence and penalty as the above-mentioned heretics…On these {18} and on all the faithful we enjoin, for the remission of sins, that they oppose this scourge with all their might and by arms protect the Christian people against them. …”

“We command that those who refuse to obey the exhortation of the bishops in this matter should not be allowed to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord. Meanwhile we receive under the protection of the Church, as we do those who visit the Lord’s Sepulchre, those who fired by their faith have taken upon themselves the task of driving out these heretics, and we decree that they should remain undisturbed from all disquiet both in their property and persons. If any of you presumes to molest them, he shall incur the sentence of excommunication from the bishop of the place, and let the sentence be observed by all until what has been taken away has been restored and suitable satisfaction has been made for the loss inflicted. Bishops and priests who do not resist such wrongs are to be punished by loss of their office until they gain the pardon of the Apostolic See.”

So judging by the last sentence, it seems these bishops and priests lose their office for resisting the molestation of those who drive out the heretics or for failing to drive these heretics out themselves, for the excommunication appears to be levied on those only who fail to prosecute those molesting defenders of the faith.

Penalties for heresy still in effect

From 1215 on, by order of Innocent III, the Jews were made to wear distinctive badges and dress and if not yet in ghettoes, they usually were confined to living in certain areas in the various countries. But even before this order they were more easily identified by their very culture and religious practice and were closely monitored by the local clergy and Rome. The Cathars and others, however, were not so contained and became very open in fomenting their errors. Since this council was held in 1179 and deals with anathema against heretics it was renewed as a penalty by Pope Paul IV in his 1559 bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, later confirmed by Pope St. Pius V in his Intermultiplices. So seeing that this council document, only quoted piecemeal by Pinay, calls upon us to actively oppose THESE above-named sects, are we then to assume that we should take up arms against the Freemasons, Novus Ordo followers and Traditionalists? For all these are heretics and apostates just as dangerous as the Cathars! How strange that those using Pinay’s work as gospel truth single out only the Jews from this Council document and ignore, analogously at least, these other dangerous heretics now persecuting the Church!

Pope Paul IV renewed the penalties for excommunication against all schismatics, heretics and apostates, also making cooperation with them in any way matter for ipso facto excommunication. But he did not renew the call to oppose these wretched people by taking up arms, at least in the situation he addressed in his bull. In fact he advised the faithful fleeing from heresy to resort instead to the secular arm to have those hierarchy removed who were never truly hierarchy, but had long ago deposed themselves. Anyone with even a smidgen of common sense knows that what was possible in medieval times and the day of the Catholic state is scarcely possible today. In his work, The Vatican Decrees in Their Bearing on Civil Allegiance (1875), Henry Cardinal Manning goes into great detail to demonstrate that the Vatican Council definition has no power whatsoever to command or depose non-Catholic governments. The Church cannot order those outside Her spiritual pale to obey Her rules and laws. And Catholic subjects cannot use the excuse that they must obey only the pope to escape obedience to civil law, which the Church always has held as binding.

“Until a Christian world existed, there was no apta materia for the supreme judicial power of the Church in temporal things,” Manning wrote in his above-mentioned work. “St. Paul laid down as a rule of law that he had nothing to do in judging those that were without the unity of the Church. It is only when nations and kingdoms become socially subject to the supreme doctrinal and judicial authority of the Church that the conditions of its exercise are verified.” And none could be duly subject to a non-existent judicial authority today. So without Catholic secular officials to appeal to in such a crusade against heresy and apostasy — without a true pope and hierarchy to command us and support us — how are we expected to embark on such a foolhardy mission, that of openly engaging the Jews? Civil law in this country forbids persecution of other religions as well as persecution of those of another race and so did Pope Pius XII and his immediate predecessors. If the popes do not command us to take up arms against the Jews or heretics existing today, and clearly they do not, then what in heaven’s name are those who are preaching such a war, at least one comprised of words and civil actions, thinking?

These people are taking entirely out of context a teaching of an ecumenical council, applied to certain heretical sects, but not the Jews, by applying it in the manner they see fit. Why? The only possible conclusion one can reach is that they really do believe that they must eradicate the Jews both as a race and as a religious entity. But what about Freemasonry, which Pope Pius IX says today is the real problem? And what about the Muslims? For from a racial standpoint, many agree, they have more Jewish blood than the Jews themselves. Even though Pinay claims that Canon Law relieves Catholics of obedience to previous laws in this matter, this is not the case as shown above. For those previous laws dealing with faith and morals are just as binding today as they ever were, as we just went to great lengths to explain in the articles posted on Cum ex. Many of the laws the popes set down concerning the Jews still bind us, for disciplinary documents are binding in many cases just as those on faith and morals are binding. But they did not set down any laws commanding us to openly oppose the Jews, or to persecute them. In fact they forbade us to do this. Below is a summary of exactly what the Continual Magisterium has taught over the centuries concerning the Jews.

The Popes on the Jews

Pope Innocent III: “The Jews… against whom the voice of the blood of Christ cries out … are not to be killed [but] they must always be dispersed as wanderers upon the face of the earth… They are admitted to our familiarity only through our mercy; but they are to us dangerous as the insect in the apple, as the serpent in the breast.”

At the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, Jews were forbidden to injure Christians by exercising usury, they were ordered to wear a distinctive badge and dress, Christians were not allowed to work for them as nurses, tutors or servants and Christians were warned not to cohabit with Jews or Jewesses. It also was ordered that while Christians could testify against Jews, Jews could not testify against Christians.

Pope Innocent IV ordered the French King to burn copies of the Talmud owing to the blasphemies contained therein concerning our Lord and His Blessed Mother.

Pope Eugenius IV basically ordered the Jews to be avoided as vitandus. Christians are not to use Jewish lawyers or legal experts in matrimonial cases or use Jewish doctors as obstetricians. Christians cannot bequeath goods to Jews in their wills.

Pope Paul IV forbade them to live in common with the Christians.

Pope Clement VIII: “All the world suffers from the usury of the Jews, their monopolies and deceit. They have brought many unfortunate people into a state of poverty, especially the farmers, working class people and the very poor… Their ethical and moral doctrines as well as their deeds rightly deserve to be exposed to criticism in whatever country they happen to live.”

Pope Benedict XIV: “Furthermore, by means of their particular practice of commerce, they amass a great store of money and then by an exorbitant rate of interest utterly destroy the wealth and inheritance of Christians,” (A Quo Primum).

Popes Pius IX and Leo XIII: Beginning in the 1880s and extending into the 20th century, there are reports that both the papally sanctioned publications L’ Osservatore Romano and Civilta Catolica, also La Croix took the hard line against the Jews.

Pope St. Pius X: “We cannot prevent Jews from going to Jerusalem, but we can never sanction it. Jews have not recognized Our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people. They had ample time to acknowledge Christ’s divinity without pressure, but they didn’t. Should the Jews manage to set foot on the once promised old-new land, the missionaries of the Church would stand prepared to baptize them. Jerusalem cannot be placed in Jewish hands,” (Wikipedia).

Pope Pius XI (Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, March 25, 1928): “The Catholic Church habitually prays for the Jewish people, who were bearers of the Divine revelation up to the time of Christ; this, despite, indeed, on account of their spiritual blindness. Actuated by this love, the Apostolic See has protected this people against unjust oppression and, just as every kind of envy and jealousy among the nations must be disproved of, so in an especial manner must be that hatred which is generally termed anti-Semitism,” (Acta Apostolica Sedis).

Rev. Denis Fahey tells Catholics how they must comport themselves where the Jews are concerned and walk that fine line between anti-Semitism and the championing of the rights of Christ the King. In his The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation, Fahey writes that while addressing Belgian peasants over the radio, Pope Pius XI read a prayer from the Canon of the Mass one day, remarking: “Anti-Semitism is incompatible with the sublime ideas and truths expressed in this text,” (prayer following the Consecration, beginning “And this deign…”) “We Christians can take no part in such a movement… no, it is impossible for Christians to take part in anti-Semitism. We acknowledge that everyone has the right to defend himself, in other words, to take the necessary precautions for his protection against everything that threatens his legitimate interests. But anti- Semitism is inadmissible. Spiritually we are Semites.” According to a cardinal who witnessed the address, the Pope wept as he read the words from the Canon. This was in September 1938, after the Fascist government of Italy issued the anti-Semitic laws stripping Jews of their rights and civil liberties, including rights to inheritance, land ownership, marriage with Aryans and service in teaching posts.

Fahey comments on the passage above: “The Church condemns race hatred in general and the hatred of the Redeemer’s race in particular…Thus we find in this pronouncement of Pope Pius XI the two currents, which, down through the centuries, run through the official declarations of the Holy See concerning the Jews. On the one hand, the Sovereign Pontiffs strive to protect the Jews from physical violence and to secure respect for their family life and worship, as the life and worship of human persons. On the other hand, they aim unceasingly at protecting Christians from the contamination of Jewish Naturalism and try to prevent Jews from gaining control over Christians.” He then mentions the duty of Christians, as explained above, to observe those things concerning the Jews which the popes have forbidden. Generally, yes; Catholics are bound to oppose Naturalism.

Fr. Denis Fahey wrote at a time when a war against this great evil could possibly have been launched. But it wasn’t launched, and Catholics did not realize the true extent of the dangers. Instead many of them willingly embraced Jewish Naturalism in accepting the Novus Ordo church. As might be expected, this action culminated in a reaction — many Traditionalists overcompensated and developed an actual racial hatred for the Jews; some of them even sympathized with neo-Nazi groups and individuals, and still do today. They blamed the Jews for destroying the Church, but that blame rested far more with negligent Catholics than it ever did with the Jews or even the Freemasons.

These are the most notable of the decrees and decisions issued by the popes throughout history, or the private comments they made. In all, some 26 popes issued decrees naming the Jews, but some of these decrees were identical, others confirmed the bulls of previous popes, and still others dealt mainly with neophytes and catechumens. So of all the popes, only about 10 percent spoke out against them formally, assuming that all the main documents have been discovered that mention them. The ecumenical councils echo their teachings. It is clear that the popes treated the Jews sternly and were reluctant to give them much leeway because of the dangers they posed to the faith. But they also protected them and would not allow them to be persecuted. Pope Pius XI tells us in his last (unpublished) encyclical that the “unyielding energy” and alternating “mildness” of the popes should not be interpreted as any lack of disagreement on the subject of the Jews on the part of the Roman Pontiffs, for it mirrors only changes and variations in circumstances and the behavior of the Jews towards the Church at different times.

As noted in the first article on this subject posted Holy Thursday, Popes Pius XI and XII softened their attitude towards the Jews only to prevent/ameliorate their persecution. Pope Pius XII especially gave pristine example concerning treatment even of our greatest enemies when they are being hunted down and murdered by others. There is no use pretending that this persecution did not rise solely from their race and Hitler’s Aryan ideas concerning racial purity, which he borrowed from Theosophy and the mystery religions; it is well-known that he was involved in secret societies. And that such racial prejudice continued even long after World War II and Hitler’s defeat and lives on in a very real way today cannot be denied. That it would ever rear its ugly head among Catholics is unthinkable, but it has; and not just for religious reasons. Otherwise, there would be no attempt by Catholics to justify the excesses of warring openly against the Jews by citing a council decree that does not exist, while ignoring their responsibility to speak out against heretics once Catholic. We are to aid our enemies when they are persecuted or in danger of being persecuted, and for those who have hinted that I am “soft” on the Jews I say only that I follow the instructions of Christ to “do good to those who hate you” and the example set by the popes.

In his A Quo Primum, Pope Benedict XIV also quotes a doctor of the Church, St. Bernard, as defending the Jews against persecutors much as the last two popes did, so here I feel I am in good company. The persecutor at that time was one Radulphus, a French monk, whom Pope Benedict says was “carried away by excessive zeal…inciting the Christians to wipe them out completely. In consequence of his intemperate zeal, a great number of Jews were slaughtered.” One Peter, the abbot of Cluny also wrote against Radulphus to Louis King of France “exhorting the king to not allow the Jews to be slaughtered,” while at the same time asking the king to take severe measures against them for their abuse of Christians through usury.

St. Bernard says of the Jews: “[They] must not be persecuted; they must not be slaughtered or hunted like wild animals…Does not the Church triumph every day over the Jews in nobler fashion by bringing home to them their errors or converting them, than by slaughtering them?…” He then urges Christians to instead pray for them, that, “the veil be lifted from their hearts,” (363rd letter; letter to Henry, Archbishop of Mayence). In the present climate, those urging action against the Jews beyond those age-old sanctions already assigned by the popes run the very real risk of stirring some borderline or unstable individuals into a frenzy that would precipitate just such a massacre as Pope Benedict attributes to Radulphus.

As we have witnessed to our great sorrow, especially recently, there is no shortage of such individuals in the world today, a world gone mad as the prophet Isaias predicted for the latter days. Traditionalists Timothy McVey and John Paul 2’s would-be assassin are cases in point. Yes, the Jews killed Christ; and yes, His blood is upon their children. But do those passing as Catholics today really think that they can successfully oppose the Jews in these times, when the Jews are convinced the Church has conceded and admitted to discriminating against them? Do these people really believe they can possibly make any headway when even the popes could not successfully resolve the problem? If they do, this is sheer egoism.

Obeying the popes today

In the 15th century, the New World was established and with it came the end of the ghettoes, for American Jews at least. Jews have freely intermingled with Christians on this continent for centuries. The popes have never forbidden it in this country and for these circumstances and all true Catholics know they are not free to marry Jews or to keep close company with them. Those who love Christ and are loyal to Him and to His vicars will do the best they can to avoid financial dealings with them, not engage them as doctors, and not use them as attorneys in any matter that might even indirectly involve the faith. Nor will a Catholic knowingly work for a Jew or employ one as a nurse or nanny. They are simply obliged in conscience to choose differently in certain matters, much as Jews and Muslims would choose to avoid buying products from Christian pig farmers. But that being said, Catholics are not bound to shun them and should display the usual signs of courtesy they offer everyone else.

For the Code of Canon Law did change the status of vitandus, so that since 1917 only those may be considered vitandus who are named personally by the pope as such. Always the intent of the Catholic Church was not to ever discriminate against the Jews as a race or even a religion but to prevent contamination of Her children by those who feigned Catholicism, even working their way into the ranks of the clergy and religious. Throughout the ages, the Jews showed themselves erstwhile enemies of the Faith by blaspheming the names of Jesus and Mary and doing what they could in other ways to subvert the clergy and faithful. If the Church took measures against them, these were defensive measures to safeguard the faith of believers, and it was never without provocation and just cause on the part of the Jews. In their own publications and in secular history volumes, Jews have not hesitated to boast that they have lured Catholics from their faith and infiltrated the clergy. But this is still no excuse for disobeying the Church and demanding an eye for an eye.

Conclusion

During the speech given by Pope St. Pius X at the Beatification of Joan of Arc, the Pope told the faithful: “In our time more than ever before, the chief strength of the wicked lies in the cowardice and weakness of good men…All the strength of Satan’s reign is due to the easy-going weakness of Catholics,” (ibid, Fahey). What are we weak in? It is clear from the consequences following Vatican 2 that Catholics did not know their faith. Pope Benedict XIV and the Cure of Ars both told Catholics in their day that this was the cause of many people losing their souls. Since the death of Pius XII, there have been no instructors in the faith. Catholics have been the victims of constant lies, half-truths, misinformation and out-and-out fraud. Some have become so confused about their faith they have abandoned it as impracticable. Traditionalist “clerics” and other self-appointed leaders ceaselessly vie with each other to gift them with their brand of the truth; or engage them in a crusade against their personal pet peeve. Yet they need listen to only one teacher, and that is Christ Himself, who speaks through His vicars. Access to their documents has never been so easy, with the advent of the Internet, and yet these documents are seldom read. Christ speaks to us, He remains with us, and yet no one reads, that they might understand.

Those pushing Catholics to realize the dangers posed by certain Jewish interests controlling politics, money and business in this nation are not wrong in what they are saying, but they assume they are talking to people who can understand what they are conveying from a truly Catholic perspective. This, however, is NOT the case. And as pointed out above, even if educated Catholics were the rule and not the exception, how could they possibly be successful in trying to change a system so totally decimated by naturalism as the American system is today without the active help and protection of the Church and Her hierarchy? Catholics must first be confident that they understand the present situation in the Church from a biblical and papal perspective, then they can leave the Traditional movement and begin learning their faith.

Because the faith was never taught and learned properly in the first place, they must start at the beginning, to learn what was missed or misunderstood and why. This takes time, patience, dedication and discipline. The material must be learned in the order provided by the catechisms the person has chosen to study and then amplified prudently with other material. Once the individual arrives at what they feel is a level of certitude about all they have studied, then perhaps more can be added to their knowledge base, but not too much at one time or too quickly. Basically the drive to combat the ascendancy of Naturalism would come under the heading of advanced studies. It is a project best confined to special Catholic Action and those suited to it, but only if they present it in the above perspective provided by the popes and do not falsely teach that any course of action should involve anything suggesting discrimination against or persecution of the Jews.

This sort of Catholic Action, however, is not something that the popes would wish us to become involved in today; given the general task of bringing most lay people up to speed, it is too risky and time-intensive, although the basic principles must be understood by Catholics. In stating that the laity must take over the duties of the hierarchy when they are absent, Pope Pius XII indicated the laity could engage in the lay apostolate, but also commented that they had to observe the Church’s known wishes in these matters. It was clearly the intent of the last two popes that specialized Catholic Action, in particular, should be overseen by the hierarchy, and we know that is not possible today.

Renegade cardinals, archbishops and bishops are the ones to blame for the demise of the Church, not primarily the Jews. They who professed to love Christ, to defend the Church with their blood (symbolized by the red color of the cardinals’ robes); those who were charged with feeding and guarding His lambs are far more at fault, as Pope Paul IV states in Cum ex…, than the enemies from without. Christ entrusted His Church to the bishops, first among them St. Peter, and even they fled from the Jews following His Passion and death on the Cross. But at least, with the exception of Judas, they did not abandon their faith. We know from lists gathered following Pope Pius XII’s death that many Cardinals and bishops were Freemasons, and they proved their affiliation by remaining in the Novus Ordo Church. They also made concessions to the Jews. But persecuting the Jews will not restore the Church; instead, since the popes have forbidden it, it will only cause us to lose our souls. This Pope Pius XI also pointed out, noting that continued persecution only exacerbates the situation, intensifying the hatred and resentment of the group persecuted against their oppressors.

Repenting for our sins, engaging in the lay apostolate — in however small a way that may be — and working diligently for each other’s salvation alone will save us. As long as true Catholics continue to follow false lay and clerical leaders who feed them stones for bread, lies for truth, there is no hope of saving our souls. When these finally realize that they are bound to accept and follow only the true teachings of the Popes and Councils, and willingly give up their pet theories to embrace this obedience, then perhaps God will see fit to have mercy on mankind and shorten these dreadful times. Pope Pius XI ended his last encyclical by informing Catholics that it is “high time” they made reparation to the Sacred Heart for the sins committed against other peoples, nations and races, to avoid a terrible and just punishment from our Lord. Those who insist on assigning to the Church an attitude concerning the Jews contrary to what this pope and others have taught would do well to take this statement to heart.

Are the Jews to Blame for Dismantling the Church?

by T. Stanfill Benns | Feb 9, 2023

Copyright 2006; revised 2014, T. Stanfill Benns (All emphasis within quotes is the author’s unless indicated otherwise.)

In these times especially, we must be wary of those who, even though well-intentioned, would overemphasize some aspect of the crisis in the Church to the extent that it takes on larger proportions than it truly possessed throughout history as well as today. One of these subjects is the role the Jews have played in the demise of the Church, a popular topic among Traditionalists for decades. Because some Traditionalists actually nurture a bitter animus towards the Jews, who they feel are responsible for the Church’s current state, they have crossed a line that we as Catholics are not allowed to cross. They could potentially do great damage to the Church and the efforts of those who are trying desperately to make known the true causes of this crisis. In order to understand what the popes require of Catholics regarding their attitude towards the Jews, please read and consider carefully the pages below.

One of the favorite ploys of the secret societies that quickly besmirches any work is the anti-Semitism smear. Many Catholic authors and theologians writing prior to World War II bought into anti-Semitic propaganda circulated by Hitler and others to justify the coming war. While there is no doubt that certain high-placed Jews play a leading role in secret societies’ orientation to world domination and the persecution of the Church, the blame load must be laid on Catholic, not Jewish shoulders. How else do we explain the Catholicity of an Origen, an Arius, a Montanus, Michael Cerularius, Wycliffe, Huss, Martin Luther, King Henry VIII, Weishaupt, priestly founder of the modern-day Illuminati, and even Hitler, a baptized Catholic? The Church’s worst enemies have always been those of Her own household. Without the help of traitors among Catholic ranks, the destruction we behold in the Church would have been impossible. It was Pope Pius IX who first referred to Freemasonry as “the Synagogue of Satan,” officially defining the meaning of Apocalypse 2: 9: “Behold I will bring of the Synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but do lie…I will make them come and adore before thy feet.”

Jewish convert David Goldstein explains anti-Semitism

From this verse we can speculate that Freemasonry wishes to pass under false colors and implicate the Jews or those claiming to be Jews by race and religion following the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Yet such are not Jews by Jesus’ definition. Rev. E. Cahill, S.J. quoting the 14th edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica, noted: “Freemasonry is essentially an Anglo-Saxon institution.” Referring to statistics printed in the London Times in October 1928, Cahill informs his readers that “thirteen-fourteenths” of all Masonic members are either American or British. He notes that Masonry doubled its ranks between 1910-1928, although in recent decades Masonic Temples reportedly have experienced a decline in membership. Cahill denied that Masonry was founded by the Jews and observed that the Kabbalistic teaching of the Lodge is embraced by only a certain segment of the Jewish population, not all Jews. But he admitted that the advent of Reform Judaism (Zionism) contributed to increased Jewish membership in Masonic ranks.

David Goldstein, a Catholic convert, did not soft pedal the involvement of Jews in anti-Catholic activities, although he does point out that certain Catholic writers treating the “Jewish problem” have relied too heavily on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion for their proofs. In his book Jewish Panorama, Goldstein dismissed the Protocols as “vicious forgeries.” While this strange revelation of clandestine goals may have seemed preposterous in Goldstein’s day, the fact that so much written in the Protocols has come to pass is a sure sign that they were not the forgeries Goldstein believed them to be, but a blueprint for a high-level branch of Freemasonry. They were not the products of Jewish minds, but the product instead of those burrowing ever deeper into the Church from within, “the serpents in Her bosom” referred to by Pope St. Pius X.

Goldstein reported that about two-thirds of all Reform rabbis who espouse the ideals of Darwin and Marx were counted as Masons in a survey conducted by New Age magazine, the official Masonic publication, in 1927. This number changed little, he added, between 1927 and the book’s publication date in 1940. Goldstein also quoted an expert on Russian affairs, Rev. Edmund Walsh, S.J., concerning the predominant role the Jews played in the rise of Bolshevism. “The role played by Jews and the Germans (in the Bolshevik Revolution) was considerable and active,” Walsh commented. “I maintain that Bolshevism is a natural phase in the evolution of a strictly historical process originating in the soil, culture and the politics of Russia itself.”

And this is understandable because in reality, many of those claiming Jewish descent were actually the descendants of white Russian Kazhar converts to Judaism from the eighth century. At that time a large number of Jews from Islam and Greece fled from various persecutions to what is now Russia and converted others there to Judaism. Judaism as their official religion. So while influenced by the Talmudism they converted to, these Russians remained Russian (actually Caucasian) always by race. Eventually the majority of these Jews strictly by religion migrated to Europe, constituting the bulk of the Jewish population there today, (see Arthur Koestler’s The Thirteenth Tribe, 1976).

Goldstein maintained that the lists printed by Rev. Denis Fahey and others proving the Jews were at the heart of the Revolution were the product of Jewish propaganda, first published by a member of the Ku Klux Klan. Goldstein says those Jews participating in the revolution were shown to be only nominally Jewish. And even Fahey quoted St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica IIIa, P. Q. 47, a6 ad1) to the effect that Christ’s words on the Cross, “Forgive them, Father…” were addressed to “the common people, but not the ‘Princes of the Jews,’ whose ignorance was affected and who evidenced hatred for Christ,” (The Kingship of Christ). Rev. Arthur Riley reminded those attending the Good Neighbor Conference in Boston in 1944 that, “The Church never has officially said or stated that the Jews as a race are responsible for the death of Christ,” (pamphlet on Anti-Semitism). In medieval times, St. Bernard of Clairvaux demonstrated great compassion for the Jews, urging Catholics to pray for them rather than resort to the civil authorities to punish them.  And the Church disciplined the monk Radolphus, who agitated the people to retaliate against the Jews for charging interest and injuring Christian rights.

Goldstein also defined proper titles for the Jewish people during various phases of their existence. He denied that the Jews are any longer a racial entity, having long ago been diluted by migration and intermarriage. He explained that the Jews, proper, existed only from about 400 B.C. to Christ’s death on the Cross. Prior to 400 B.C., they are to be called Israelites. Although Christ was descended from the tribe of Juda/jew-da, (meaning just), he cautioned that Christ’s Jewishness must not be confused with that of the Jews living in Israel after the Resurrection. Those who are called Jews today are to be considered as a separate group, professing beliefs added to the Talmud over the centuries since the Temple’s destruction in 70 A.D.

The distinction becomes clear if we consider that Christ’s family kept to the Torah and the old ways of Judaism and was not infected with the Hellenizing element of Greek democracy, like the majority of the Jews in their day. It becomes clearer still when we realize that it was actually the early Romans who first leveled ritual murder charges at the Jews. This is not to say that the malignant among the Jews were not guilty of some of these acts in later centuries, for St. Hugh of Lincoln and Bd. Andreas both are honored by the Church as children murdered by such Jews; also St. Simeon. But in many other cases “The popes courageously, and in face of general popular antagonism, have defended the Jews against calumnious accusations, notably of ritual murder,” (Anti-Semitism, Rev. Riley).

The Muslims, Chinese, Native Americans and the Protestants, also, have murdered martyrs revered as saints and no one has accused them of ritual murder. In explaining the Romans’ charges, H. Daniel-Rops demonstrated only that such charges can be exaggerated and even fabricated to create fear and revulsion for political gain. “A very hostile attitude existed toward the Jews in the Roman world,” Daniel-Rops wrote, (The Church of the Apostles and Martyrs.) Ridiculous stories and malicious absurdities were circulated about the Jews and their religious beliefs and practices, he explained, much as they are about certain Catholics today. This prejudice then engendered animosity and eventually resulted in “real pogroms” that involved bloodshed. “To a large extent, anti- Christian feeling was to be molded on anti-Semitism,” he observed, especially since the Romans very often perceived the Christians as a quasi-Jewish sect.

Pope Pius XI defends the Jews

It would take 1,932 years for anti-Semitism to erupt in all its pent-up fury. But when it did come to the forefront, the Vicar of Christ was at the helm to speak in the very words used by Our Lord Himself: “Forgive them Father for they know not what they do.” Already, however, the forces of evil were quick to stifle His words. At about the same time Goldstein was writing his work, another pen was laboriously completing what would become the last encyclical written by Pope Pius XI. Bearing the official title, Humani Generis Unitatis, it was called the “lost” encyclical because Pius XI died only days before it could be issued. Although he left explicit instructions to release the encyclical in the event of his death, his Secretary of State Eugenio Pacelli, who would succeed him as Pius XII, never fulfilled his dying wish.

The immediate commencement of World War II only months after Pius XI left this earth made fulfilling his predecessor’s wish problematic for Pope Pius XII, for reasons Pius XI himself states in his encyclical. Still, no official explanation was ever offered concerning its suppression. Pius XII did eventually issue an encyclical entitled Humani Generis, reflecting some of the ideas in his predecessor’s encyclical. But even after the war’s end removed any danger connected with its release, the encyclical remained hidden from view. In this last encyclical, Pope Pius XI addressed the evils of modern technology and established the Church’s official attitude in regards to anti-Semitism. Anticipating the tidal wave inexorably headed for Europe during those dark days prior to his death, the Pope’s words would have done much to establish battle lines for Catholics inundated with Nazi racial propaganda, unsure where to draw the lines according to Catholic dogma. A summary of the anti-Semitism section of his encyclical is given here with quotes where applicable.

1. The Church upholds and defends Her right to warn Her children against those actively hostile to the Christian religion, especially, “misguided souls, whether of the Jewish people or other origin, who ally themselves with or promote” revolutionary movements aimed at the destruction of society and the Catholic Church.
2. Alternating mildness and zeal on the part of the popes over the centuries in addressing this anti-Catholic attitude does not reflect “any interior change in the Church’s policy,” which is easily found confirmed in “the conduct of bishops…and Her ecumenical councils,” and especially the conduct of the Holy See.
3. Under the specific heading “Anti-Semitism,” Pope Pius XI states: “Such persecutory methods are totally at variance with the true spirit of the Catholic Church.” Quoting a decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office dated March 5, 1928, the pope points to the Church’s professed love for the Jews and desire for their salvation. The decree contains a resolution on the part of the papacy to continue to protect the Jews against unjust oppression and open anti-Semitism.
4. From a psychological standpoint, Pius XI explains that such persecutions only entrench any group in their initial tendencies, doing injury to any hope of conversion.
5. Pius XI urges those unjustly oppressed not to repay evil with evil. He cautions that they must hate the sin and love the sinner where anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic activity is concerned. The pope warns the world that hatred for the Jews readily provides a ruse for attacking Christ and His Church, since Jesus was a Hebrew Himself.
6. The pope explains why anti-Semitism is a double-edged sword for the Church, an explosive issue that can cause Her acute embarrassment and pave the way for accusations that the Church has chosen sides politically. At that time to oppose anti-Semitism would have aligned the Vatican with the Allies, precluding any hope of negotiating an early end to the hostilities. An attempt to defend the Jews would only have succeeded “in attributing earthly and political motives to Her legitimate defense of Christian principles.” On the other hand, the least insinuation from the Vatican that joining the anti- Semites in their vilification of everything Jewish has at least some small justification would be even more disastrous.
7. The pope reminds the faithful that Church teaching is “unequivocal and unchanging.” The Church has no interest in political intrigues but wishes only to uphold the laws of justice and charity. She desires only to preserve the truths of faith entrusted to Her and pray for the eventual conversion of the Jews. She yet holds the Jews responsible for their attitudes toward Christianity and does not fail to teach that the Jews, especially those allied with “the highest tribunal in the Jewish nation,” in collusion with the pagan authorities, were responsible for Christ’s crucifixion. Generally, however, the Church blames the Jewish priests and lay leaders, not the Jewish people themselves, for Christ’s arrest and death.
8. Pope Pius XI decries the ravages of racism in general, and persecution of the Jews in particular. “As a result of this persecution, millions of persons are deprived of the most elementary rights and privileges of citizens in the very land of their birth. Denied legal protection…exposed to every form of insult and public degradation, innocent persons are treated as criminals although they have scrupulously obeyed the laws of their native land. The struggle for racial purity ends by being uniquely the struggle against the Jews…no different in true motives and methods from persecution carried out against the Jews since antiquity. These persecutions have been censored by the Holy See on more than one occasion but especially when they have worn the mantle of Christianity.”
9. Pius XI concludes this section by soliciting prayers for the conversion of the Jews, sternly warning Catholics that no force or promise of material gain ever is to be employed in such conversions, since it would only result in hypocrisy. His final words encourage Catholics to be merciful to the persecuted and defend their rights, demanding from all “a vigorous condemnation of anti-Semitism and racism wherever these doctrines raise their heads.”

Attempts to portray Pope Pius XII as an anti-Semite

Such is the official position of the Catholic Church concerning the Jews and we see no need here, despite any “politically correct” stance demanded by the liberal press to depart from Pius XI’s assessment of the situation. Recent attempts to indict Pope Pius XII for failing to do all he could do for the Jews has been ably refuted by competent historians. The proofs cited in such works as A Question of Judgment: Pius XII and the Jews, a booklet written by the Director for the International Affairs Department of the Anti- Defamation League and distributed in 1963 disproves the accusation that Pope Pius XII was an anti-Semite. The author demonstrates, rather, that the Pope did all he could to assist the Jews in their hour of need, just as Pius XI promised and the papacy has done historically. As for the case against anti-Semitism from a Jewish point of view, if the Jewish people themselves absolve us from blame, how can others accuse us?

In the course of his sympathetic and meticulously thorough best-selling book, Jews, God and History, Max I. Dumont was careful to distinguish between true and false anti- Semitism, attributing the confusion to semantic difficulties. He pointed out that there must be an illogical and irrational element to true anti-Semitism, stemming entirely from unconscious motivation. He separated what many historians have judged to be medieval Catholic, anti-Semitic prejudice from true anti-Semitism by explaining that Catholics, at least, had a very rational, logical reason for their attitude toward the Jews. Dumont also stated that the true anti-Semite does not offer Jews an alternative to being Jewish, hope of redemption, or a solution to their Jewish “problem.”

In contrast, the Church was always careful to hold out the promise of eternal salvation in exchange for conversion in dealing with the Jewish people. Clearly Dumont would not include the Church or Catholics who oppose Jews on religious grounds in the category of true anti-Semites. He did not agree with other historians who took the Popes to task for creating Jewish ghettoes, explaining that in reality, this was only an enforced sort of segregation, not a prison-type experience. True anti-Semites, he emphasized, hate the Jew merely for his race. They hate him to the exclusion of all others, and would not hesitate to exterminate him simply on the basis of race alone. If Mr. Dumont, himself a Jew, can hold such a balanced view, it would seem that others could follow his lead.

Conclusion

Accusations of anti-Semitism against the Church are inspired, Rev. Riley said, by “opponents of organized religion… seeking violence to attain a mass movement against religion.” He explained that the real purpose of the false anti-Semitism charge was “either to eliminate Catholics, because their Church is considered to be the precipitating factor, or eliminate the question of the Messianic mission from controversy… Religiously (this) is suicidal.” The world must realize that the Church, as She was constituted and has always existed, is not composed of Jew haters. Her teachings and Her Supreme Pontiffs forbade it, and until recently Catholics were loyal to Church teaching. As Dimont stressed, for every Jew the Inquisition questioned and released, it executed 1,000 Christians.

The Church’s worst enemies were always those of Her own household. If Catholics wish to know why they lost the papacy and the Latin Tridentine Mass, they need look no further than Daniel 8:12. In this passage he speaks of the cessation of the continual sacrifice, a verse initially applied to the cessation of the Jewish sacrifice and destruction of the Temple under Antiochus but also to a future cessation and destruction, which can only be our own. Antichrist will abolish the continual sacrifice “because of sins,” Daniel wrote. And the “sacrifices” offered by Traditionalists today do not qualify as a continuation of those offered by priests certainly validly ordained and sent by competent authority.

The sins Daniel mentions encompass both the sins of the Chosen People in the Old Covenant and ours in the New. It especially points the finger at Traditionalist pseudo-clerics who by belonging to secret societies themselves and exercising orders they never validly received have done far more damage to Catholics than the Jews could have ever hoped to do. Today we should be wearing sackcloth and ashes and beating our breasts with mean culpas, all the while reciting the prayer addressed to God in Daniel 9:4-19 for mercy and forgiveness. If, when He comes to chastise us, Jesus cannot find a “few good Catholics” among us who realize the necessity of repentance, how else will the world escape the wrath of God?