What the popes teach about the Jews

© Copyright 2014, 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. 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.

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

This is not just an idle comment. 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. 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 pretence 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? They 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 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. 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 cause 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. 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.


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 the Jews’ control of 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. However this sort of Catholic Action, it seems, 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 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 for restoring the Church. 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.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.