Welcome Information Connoisseurs

Welcome Information Connoisseurs

Friday, March 11, 2011

Pope Benedict’s new book and the conversion of the “Jews"

by Michael Hoffman

The pope's new book on Jesus Christ and the Jews, Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week, has been published. I will be reading it early next week and my full review will appear in "Revisionist Historynewsletter.

From excerpts I have read online, the book is written in the classic mode of casuistry, the post-medieval Roman Catholic lawyer’s corollary to the Talmud’s lawyerly pilpul.

By means of this casuistry the pope is saying one thing to the Left and the rabbis, but provides enough cover for his thesis so that the Right and conservative Catholics can allow themselves to believe that he really didn't say what the rabbis and the Left are saying he did say.

What a tangled web! Whatever happened to plain speech? “Let your yes be yes, and your no be no; anything else is of the evil one” (Matthew 5:37).

The Vatican and the rabbis do not heed Christ's sage admonition, that's for sure. For example, Purim, the Talmudic feast of revenge, is just around the corner on the rabbinic calendar, Adar 14 (March 19-20). On Purim, every Judaic male is required to get so drunk he can't tell the difference between Haman and Mordechai. The Talmud obligates adult Judaic males to become intoxicated at Purim, then warns them of the potential dangers of such inebriation (Babylonian Talmud, Megila 7b). The Talmud provides a plausible denial loophole for its own command to Judaic males to become intoxicated with alcohol. Bottom line: for centuries Judaic males have gotten hopelessly drunk on Purim.

Pope Benedict's casuistry reflects the plausible denial stratagem exhibited in Megila 7b: while the pope does not affirm in Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week the theory holding that “Jews” will be saved independently of Christ, he does suggest the Church should not be targeting “Jews" for conversion efforts.

Observe this tangled web of papal casuistry: [1] "Don't convert the ‘Jews,’ [2] but they do need Christ to be saved."

[1] Don't convert the “Jews” — absolutely delights Pharisaic Judaism and the Left.

[2] "Jews" still need Christ to be saved — provides a face-saving escape clause for the pope’s Right-wing.

Benedict "approvingly quotes" Cistercian abbess and "Biblical writer" Hildegard Brem: “The church must not concern herself with the conversion of the Jews, since she must wait for the time fixed for this by God.”

I'm going to "approvingly quote" the founder of the Christian Church (just in case His words count for anything next to those of abbesses and pontiffs): “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24)

Let's see now, at the beginning of His ministry Jesus focused his conversion efforts solely on the House of Israel, but since then, that focus has been abrogated? Or would the casuists prefer to employ the word "derogated"?

The charge given by Jesus later in His ministry, to carry the Gospel to the gentiles, to the ends of the earth, Pope Benedict reverses, in favor of what the pontiff terms a “sequence": first the “full number” of the Gentiles comes to the faith, and only then the Jews.

So Jesus had it wrong. He sought to convert the Jews first. He wasn't aware of the "sequence"!

The pope quotes St. Bernard of Clairvaux’s advice to one of his predecessors, Pope Eugene III, that “a determined time has been fixed” for the conversion of the Jews “that cannot be anticipated.”

Clever! The pope has switched gears and is alluding to eschatology, the Pauline prediction of Judaic conversion in general, in some form and to some extent (we know not the particulars), at the end of time.

This process would, however, never forbid the conversion of individual "Jews" before the end time, and it never did. Ecclesiastic history testifies to militant missionary efforts toward Judaics.  Otherwise, what were Peter and Paul doing in the Church in the first place? Why didn't Christ just convert the Roman Centurion, the Samaritan woman and any other gentile He chose, and make them apostles and disciples, leaving His call to the Simons and Sauls to the time when the "full number" of the gentiles would be converted?

No doubt Dr. Scott Hahn and other august PhD. theologians beholden to the Novus Ordo Seclorum, will resolve these “seeming" contradictions and tie them into a neat traditional package, exactly corresponding to "what the Church has always taught."

But the Church has always taught that from motives of charity and compassion we should free Judaics from the shackles of bondage to the religious system based on the Babylonian Talmud, and lead them to the love, grace and mercy of Jesus.

Catholic Saints like Vincent Ferrer responded heroically to the call to convert Judaics. Among Protestants, international missionary organizations were founded, such as the London Society for Promoting Christianity Among the Jews. In the space of a few decades of the 19th century, nearly 1800 Judiacs were converted and baptized in the Society's London chapel in Palestine Lane, and thousands more were converted throughout Germany and eastern Europe. One of the leaders of the Society, Rev. Dr. Alexander McCaul, warned of the sins which Judaics commit as long as they remain in Judaism:

"Every man who uses the prayers of the synagogue, there confesses himself to God as a believer in the oral law, and consequently ready to execute all its decrees of cruelty, fraud and persecution...That is his profession in the synagogue; when he then comes forth from the solemn act of Divine Worship and tells me that he is...charitable and that he abhors persecution, how can I possibly believe him?..so long as their words and their deeds contradict each other, a mist hangs over them...There is falsehood somewhere and the only possible mode of removing this appearance is by a public renunciation of the oral law...To their God they owe it, for by the blasphemies of the oral law, His character is misrepresented and His name blasphemed."

Judaism is an offense to God — now — at this moment! Pope Benedict XVI, by "suggesting" that Jews need not convert to faith in Jesus Christ "at this time in history," is abandoning them to their sins, and ultimately to damnation, for no one is saved by their race!

Who then is the "Jew hater"? Is it the Christian evangelist who converts Judaics, or the Catholic casuist who leaves them to die without Christ?

The rabbis claim to be the defenders of the "Jews." Are they not actually their worst enemies? And what of a pope who, by retarding missionary efforts, cooperates with the Christless agenda of rabbinic Judaism?

Michael Hoffman is the author of Judaism Discovered, an 1100 page textbook and reference work. He is a former reporter for the New York bureau of the Associated Press.

...Benedict sensitively touches upon a major problem that has plagued Catholic-Jewish relations all throughout history: converting Jews. This topic has been the focus of considerable discord in Catholic-Jewish relations in recent years...As a theological conservative, Benedict has written previously that the Jewish covenant at Sinai has been superseded. But his supersessionism has always been focused on the end of time, and he has maintained that Jewish unification with the church is “hardly possible, and perhaps not even desirable before the eschaton.” In his latest book, he expands this idea, insisting that for now “Israel retains its own mission” and that saving Israel “is in the hands of God” — meaning, presumably, not in the hands of Christian missionaries. Had Christians followed this doctrine throughout the millennia...Jews would have been freer to practice their faith with dignity. Benedict’s expectation of the future acceptance of Christian faith by everyone takes the practical threat out of Christian supersessionism for Jews today."

Rabbi Eugene Korn, "Benedict’s ‘Jesus’ and the Jews”
Forward newspaper, March 9, 2011

(Korn is American director of the Israeli "Center for Jewish-Christian Understanding and Cooperation" in Efrat and Jerusalem, and editor of Meorot: A Forum of Modern Orthodox Discourse).



Anonymous said...

Thanks Mr. Hoffman for another excellent article.

Since the Catholic Faith is a religion which entails making important distinctions, however, I wish to draw attention to one statement in the article: "From excerpts I have read online, the book is written in the classic
mode of casuistry, the post-medieval Roman Catholic lawyer's corollary
to the Talmud's lawyerly pilpul."

The above statement might give one to readily think of casuistry only in a negative way. Actually, there is much good to be said for the use of casuistry in the history of the Catholic Church and hence the need for sometimes making distinctions in citing the use of casuistry in the Catholic Church. Its meritorious and hence legitimate use must be distinguished from its abuses as epitomized by the extreme wings or schools of casuistry -- i.e., the rigorist and the laxist ones. The following quote taken from the very last section of the article on casuistry found in the classic early 20th Century Catholic Encyclopedia (which, of course, is not infallible in all that it states) may prove useful in our looking at the positive side of the use of casuistry by the Catholic Church. It is found at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03415d.htm

"By recalling casuists to the study of their classic authors he [St.Alphonsus Maria de Liguori] restored casuistry itself to the place its importance and dignity demanded. His first publication was the "Medulla Theologiae Moralis" of Hermann Busembaum, S.J., with annotations. In eight successive editions this work was enlarged and improved, until it became a synopsis of casuistical literature. The last edition, entitled "Theolgia Moralis", was published in 1785, and received the approbation of the Holy See in 1803. In 1871 Pius IX proclaimed the saintly author a Doctor of the Church. The after-history of casuistry is one of peace and development along the lines laid down by St. Alphonsus."


George Kocan said...

Although I profess and practice the Catholic religion, I do not speak for Catholicism in any formal way. I have no ecclesiastical authority to write what I write. I have never taken a class in Biblical criticism nor in any kind of theology. In this regard, I would best describe myself as a bar-room debater (although I do not frequent bars).
Michael Hoffman alleges that the present Pope uses casuistry in his effort to say two incompatible things: 1. Jews cannot be saved without Jesus; 2. Catholics should avoid proselytizing Jews.
In defense of the Pope, what Hoffman calls ‘casuistry,’ I call ‘diplomacy.’ Diplomacy has taken pride of place in the Catholic Church at least since Vatican II. This effort to moderate the image of the Catholic Church results from prudential and charitable motives. As most observers of religious institutions know, Catholic doctrine esteems both Charity and Prudence as virtues.
While Hoffman insists that the only true Charity means the conversion of the Jews, that does not mean a total mobilization of Church resources organized into a Crusade to pressure Jews into massive conversion. In our modern environment, a formal program to convert Jews easily translates into another Auschwitz. This equation of Catholic conversion and genocide did not come from the Catholic Church, obviously. In the modern political, social environment, the Church has little to say about its image in the world, especially, among Jews of good will. I submit, that a formal Papal declaration in favor of Jewish conversion would scare the Hell out of Jews and render even more difficult any efforts at conversion. That is the world we know today. And that is the world which the Pope recognizes, in my opinion.
Naturally, diplomacy has its abuses. Vatican II appears to have been an effort at diplomacy, much of it fashioned to ease the fears of the Church’s enemies. Among these enemies are the thousands of Protestant denominations. So, the Church has changed the immemorial Mass to placate Protestant tastes. The Church, which has been relentlessly accused of mindless dogmatism and hostile intolerance at least since the so-called Enlightenment, which has prompted accusations of complicity with the NAZI’s in the persecution of the Jews, has changed its emphasis to feel-good tolerance, accommodation and diplomacy. Perhaps, this is the right way, for I am reluctant to sit in judgment over the Popes. After all, St. Paul said somewhere that for the sake of conversion, that he will be all things to all people. (I say ‘somewhere’ because, after all, I am a Catholic and do not know much about the Bible.)
In other words, the effort at diplomacy in a vehemently hostile environment against the Catholic Church came about because of the Church’s enemies, whose greatest impact has developed in English-speaking countries. If the Protestants, such as Hoffman, demand that the Church embark on a Crusade to convert Jews, they will have to call off their 500 year propaganda war against the Church of Rome.

Unknown said...

Mr. Kocan,

You are incorrect in stating that the Second Vatican Council's "effort to moderate the image of the Catholic Church" was the result of "prudential and charitable motives" or at worst an abuse of diplomacy. The truth of the matter is as dedicated Catholic men once wrote on the eve of the Council in the Italian Introduction to the book, The Plot Against the Church (a copy of which was given to at least every Cardinal in attendance at the Council) :

"We have proofs of how everything is being planned in secret agreement with the leading forces of Communism, of world Freemasonry and of the secret power directing these... It is intended to cause the Church to declare that what it has represented for centuries as bad, is now good. Among such maneuvers spun for this purpose one particularly stands out on account of its importance, and refers in fact to the conduct of Holy Church towards the damned Jews, as St. Augustine calls them ; and this in reference both to those who nailed Christ to the cross, as well as to their descendants who are both archenemies of Christianity. The unanimous doctrine of the great Church Fathers, that ‘unanimous consensus Patrum’ which the Church regards as a source of faith, condemned the unbelieving Jews and declared the struggle against them to be good and necessary... The Jewish, Freemasonic and Communist plotters now have the intention at the coming Council of utilizing, as they assert, the lack of knowledge of most clergy concerning the true history of the Church, in order to execute a surprise coup, by their adopting the standpoint at the assembled Council that anti-Semitism must be condemned, as well as every struggle against the Jews who, as we will elaborate, are the wirepullers of Freemasonry and of international Communism. They would like that the infamous Jews, who the Church has regarded as evil for the course of nineteen centuries, to be declared as good and beloved of God. As a result the unanimous consensus Patrum which laid down exactly the opposite, would be contradicted, as well as that which was expressed through various Papal Bulls and Canons of Ecumenical and Provincial Councils."

The goal of the wirepullers behind the Second Vatican Council was “to transform the Holy Church into a satellite in the service of Communism, Freemasonry and the Synagogue of Satan.” Since the Conciliar Church has become this satellite we must not fool ourselves into believing that this tremendous effect did not have such a tremendous cause. Pretending that the leading Heresiarchs of the Council acted without malice is a mental trick anemic spirits play on themselves. The same goes for the presently reigning Pontiff who is without doubt a Judas selling our Lord's Mystical Body into the hands of the Jews out of malice.

Yet you are right about one thing, "If the Protestants, such as Hoffman, demand that the Church embark on a Crusade to convert Jews, they will have to call off their 500 year propaganda war against the Church of Rome."

Dead Reckoning said...

@ George Kocan – your style of writing is evocative of so-called conservative radio talk show hosts which can speak in paragraphs at a clip without any thought that any sentence in the paragraph is actually correct or actually says something of substance. It would take 10 pages of written questions to fully decipher or examine what you have said.

First, if you read Hoffman you will note that the terms used in his work to describe the ‘Tribe’ are Judaic or Talmudist, or Talmudic Judaic, etc. If the Pope truly wanted to instruct the flock on modern Judaics so as to combat hatred – he would write that there is no more Jewish bloodline left as the racial stock of Israelites (of whom the Jews were a part) were scattered to the four winds when the Romans destroyed the Temple and burned the country out.

On that basis, there is no more ‘blood curse’ ala the Pontius Pilate and the Pharisees ‘His blood be upon us and upon our children. . .’ because there is no more blood line.

The Pope would then tell the flock that the Judaic people around today calling themselves ‘Jews’ are the descendants of converts from the Khazarian area of the Central Russian steppes, or in the event they are not Khazarian in origin, they are practically genetically indistinguishable from the local population they live in given intermarriage, conversion, etc. over the last 2000 years. Therefore Christian, you can safely give up any thought of a ‘curse’ existing.

The Pope would then tell us that 96% of the observant Judaic population are Talmudically oriented and that the Talmud consists of a written and enlarged form of rules and philosophy that the ‘Scribes and Pharisees’ were religiously practicing at the time of Christ, against which Christ repeatedly preached and labored, and whose proponents at that time begged for Christ’s Crucifixtion.

Therefore, Judaics are just like everyone else and are proper targets for converion to Christianity and are no different than any other human culture or peoples and are not 'special'. End of story.

Remembering that none of us have had the opportunity to read the Pope’s new book yet – so we still don’t know what the conclusions are going to be but it hardly looks good.

Diplomacy – by that you mean ‘skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility’

“Diplomacy has taken pride of place in the Catholic Church at least since Vatican II” – this would be opposed to Christ’s statement to the apostles ‘Ye are the salt of the Earth’ – What does salt do to an open wound?


Dead Reckoning said...

“. . .total mobilization of Church resources organized into a Crusade to pressure Jews into massive conversion. . . “

Can you point out anywhere in the world it would be possible to “pressure Jews” into conversion. Is it ‘pressure’ to have a street side conversation with one or publish books pointing out the errors and downright putrid nature of Talmudic philosophy. Is it ‘pressure’ to tell a Judaic person that he can safely disregard the insanity of Kosher dietary laws on the basis that it ‘is not what goes in your mouth that makes you impure, but what comes out of it.’ Anyway, the last mobilization to ‘convert’ Jews was probably in Spain in the 1400’s and it came from a King and Queen, not from the Vatican.

“In our modern environment, a formal program to convert Jews easily translates into another Auschwitz”

This is insanity – can you tell me anywhere on Earth, even in Iran, where there are any government/military structures in place sufficient to grab and incarcerate Judaic people into camps on the basis of their race and kill them? – You don’t need to get down on one knee and speak in hushed tones every time you hear the word ‘Auschwitz’ – do some reading, Auschwitz was not a summer camp for rich kids – but it wasn’t a place of genocide or gas chambers either. Even assuming Aushwitz was true to its Hollywood portrayal – there is nowhere on Earth that such a camp could be set up for Judaics. It would take two decades of political upheaval all over the world and installation of totalitarian regimes. Frankly, Mr. Christian, it would be far more likely for you or I to get thrown into a camp behind barbed wire for things like homeschooling children, failing to use vaccines, or publishing books on inconvenient history, than any Judaic.

“I submit, that a formal Papal declaration in favor of Jewish conversion would scare the Hell out of Jews and render even more difficult any efforts at conversion.”

If that was truly the Pope’s concern, than he should be silent on the question and concern himself with everything else that has gone wrong in the world. Fealty to Judaic concerns cannot be a requirement for office in the Catholic, or any other, Church of government.

“Naturally, diplomacy has its abuses. Vatican II appears to have been an effort at diplomacy, much of it fashioned to ease the fears of the Church’s enemies.”

What enemies. The Church has only one enemy per se and that is ‘the Devil’.

“Among these enemies are the thousands of Protestant denominations”
Huh? There were periods of time when there was open warfare between, let’s say, Lutheran Princes and Catholic princes with their resultant peasantries pressed into military service – but circa 1850, 1900, or 1950, or now – I don’t think any Catholic has passed a Lutheran church in 200 years and said to himself ‘that is my enemy’s house’ or vice versa.

Another example of why I think that is false – I have been reading about the history of the Redemptorist order in the USA. In the 1800’s, their mission style preaching was so good, even in Mennonite strongholds like in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, often Protestant ministers would bring their congregations to hear the Redemptorists preach on the Gospel. This did not happen all the time - but even in the 1800’s we were not at each other’s throats.

“. . . .which has prompted accusations of complicity with the NAZI’s in the persecution of the Jews. . .”

Nazi, Nazi, Nazi, Nazi, Nazi, Nazi, Nazi, blah blah blah. Start playing the spooky sounding music. Whensome says Nazi – its time to turn off the radio.

Itzchak said...

Oh no...you've figured out what we're doing. How will it ever work now.
This is a real blow to the synagogue of satan.

George Kocan said...

In the propaganda war against the Catholic Church, ‘Auschwitz’ serves as a social/political construct. It serves as a symbol, a synecdoche, of the Church’s 2000 year persecution of the Jews. It is a loaded term which begs the question of guilt: the Church is guilty, by definition. The historical circumstances do not matter.
The Church did not invent this construct. I cannot say, with any confidence just who did invent it. Did the Communists invent it when they “liberated” Auschwitz, just as they pinned the blame for murdering 20,000 Polish officers at Katyn and other places on the Germans? Did Jews like Elie Wiesel invent it? Did the British intelligence service invent it? Did CBS television invent it? I do not know. Nevertheless, it exists in the public consciousness like a Jungian archetype. So, the Church has to adapt to it. It will not win an outright propaganda war against its enemies, which is what the other writers on this blog want.
It will not win because of at least two reasons: 1. The Church does not have access to the public mind. All its public communications must travel through a filter controlled by those hostile to its existence, including Protestants, Jews, atheists, Freemasons, etc. 2. The leadership by temperament is incapable of sustaining a war of any kind. Diplomats do not confront and tell the bald-faced truth and let the chips fall where they may. Jesus, Himself, often spoke indirectly, leaving his disciples in the dark about what He said exactly. I know, the arm-chair generals among the traditional Catholics want the bishops to become martyrs. Let their blood flow and reseed the flowering of the Church. Well…lots of luck with that.
Yes, in the history of America, the Catholic Church has had and continues to have many enemies. Hugo Black achieved fame by successfully defending a man who murdered a Catholic priest, an effort which ultimately propelled him to the Supreme Court. More recently, the Quakers, through the agency of the American Friends Service Committee, invited a man with his first two names ‘Martin Luther’, to bring his followers to Chicago, mostly Southern Baptists, to drive the Catholics who lived there into the suburbs, under the rubric of ‘civil rights.’ He presented himself as a new Moses who would lead the new Jews into the new Promised Land of New Canaan, where the Southern Baptists would ethnically cleanse the Catholics for their idolatry. The new Moses/Luther signaled his intentions when he affixed his own Ninety Thesis to the door of Chicago’s city hall, where the Catholic mayor, Richard J. Daley presided. That was not a friendly gesture. And, attacking the present Pope for casuistry is not friendly, either.

Unknown said...

The Church will not win a propaganda war against her enemies because Benedict XVI is the chief agent engaged in waging this propaganda war against her. As Father James Wathen says in his Magnum Opus, Who Shall Ascend (1992) :

"For, consider what has happened and is happening. The largest and most powerful religious body in the world, that religious body which all others resent and envy, and, in many instances, strive to imitate, after two thousand years, the only religious body which has any serious claim to divine origin, which has a history filled with illustrious personages and glorious achievements; whose libraries are filled with the earthly and unearthly wisdom of the ages, whose doctors and scholars have refined its teaching to that of a masterly science; whose popes throughout the centuries had commanded the respect and deference of the whole world, even from those who might, for that very reason, aspire to extinguish their memory, one and all; a Church whose doctrine and spirit have given birth to the very noblest and most beautiful in the way of art, of architecture, of music, of literature, of the highest culture, of genteel and gentle manners and customs; an institution which, throughout the ages, was able to call forth from among its young the most admirable and unstinting generosity and lifelong dedication. Imagine this religious body, on the strength of nothing more than the majority votes of its bishops, not a few of which were obtained as cheaply as those at a political caucus, peremptorily setting in motion a program which calls for the renunciation of its teaching, its past, its glories; giving in to the plaints and assenting to the accusations of its enemies, of dispossessing itself of all the things which have made it formidable, awe-inspiring, and effective; of undertaking to reduce itself to the level of nothing more than an association of political influence, an eleemosynary bureau, an organization whose new purpose of existence is to congratulate all the people of the world that they are so well off for not being Catholics, or Christian, or anything. Imagine further that from the very first days of the Revolution within this religious body, while its bishops and priests are swinging the sledge hammers and axes to destroy the edifice which has been two thousand years in the building, harangued by the pope who encourages the wreckers, and sets the most ardent example of demolition and ecclesiastical masochism-imagine all the while, as the ceiling beams and pillars thereof come crashing down, and the great windows shatter and the walls crumble, the priests all chanting with rhythmic madness, “We are changing nothing! We are following the traditions of our fathers. All that we do is by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.”


Unknown said...

(Fr. Wathen Continued from previous post)

"The Second Vatican Council was a part of the World Judeo-Masonic Revolution, and all that is done by the Conciliar Church is in fulfillment of its predetermined program.

"What is now happening in the Conciliar Church is not a phase of a genuine and well-intentioned reform within the Catholic Church. Nor is this only an expectable period of adjustment, which (so they say) the Church must go through, such as has occurred after all the great ecumenical councils. This is just another falsehood put forth to deceive the laity. The deceivers will say this kind of thing to laypeople and expect them to believe it, which most of them do. The Conciliar Establishment has been erected on misrepresentation, like all heretical sects, and can only continue as long as the people go along with it, which they are doing to their perdition.

{Behold} "the sacrilege of the Novus Ordo Missae, Communion in the Hand, the hemorrhage of nullifications of marriages, the preaching of socialism and Marxist-Leninism, the falsification of the Church’s history, the glorification of the heresiarchs of the past, rampant immorality and homosexuality among the clergy, the teaching of Protestantism, Judaism, Modernism, and Humanism in seminaries and other schools, the abandonment of the children to government school systems, the indifference to attacks upon the Church from its enemies. Such is the wickedness of the New Religion that apostasy and immorality are openly protected by the Conciliar Establishment. Do we exaggerate? We say again, every form of heresy and denial is in vogue and well-received in the Conciliar Establishment. As to moral matters, consider only that the Counter-Church is in open alliance with Marxist and Masonic states, which are boldly and fiercely diabolic, anti-human, and antiChristian. In addition to this, meetings are being held for the ever closer joining of the Conciliar Church with the Protestant Establishment, under the umbrella of the World Council of Churches. The joining of the two communions takes place gradually, not because there is any real doctrinal incompatibility between them, but to spread the phasing out of Catholic belief through phraseology over a period of years, thus to give the people time to get used to the idea...

{Therefore} "one must convince oneself that all this is going on because it was intended by those who set up the Conciliar Church, and it continues because those who control it want it to. How do we know this? We know it by the fact that those who have authority in the Church are either permitting it, or they are actively engaged in seeing that it happens. They continue to appoint bishops who will either certainly permit, or will positively promote, such things ; and all the while they will silence and demote those who raise their voices against them. We are speaking of the Pope and the Curia.

"The hierarchs of the Conciliar Establishment, make it clear that what is happening rejoices their hearts, because what is happening is in perfect accord with their Masonic philosophy. They hate the True Church ; they do not believe the traditional doctrine of Catholicity ; they are repelled by the traditional code of morality ; they have no reverence for the True Mass, nor faith in the power of the Sacraments, nor fear of divine chastisement. In a word, they are confirmed Liberals, committed Freemasons, entrenched Modernists, explicit Marxists, avowed Hegelians, and pseudo-Catholics : All of which makes them coconspirators, the enemies of the Church and of your soul."