From Roddy's article, Jewry appears to have engaged all its tactical means, all its most valuable tools, and all its immense economic resources to deal a definitive blow to Christianity so that, without enemies worth mentioning, they could devote themselves to fulfilling their dream of a materialistic Messianic world government and a religious syncretism designed to eliminate any trace of Christ and His religion forever. The work was slow, discrete, and without a doubt, it attained a progressive and surprising success, I do not think non-Jews will ever be able to investigate all the secrets of this secular conspiracy; that is why Mr. Roddy's confession, though incomplete, is exceptionally valuable, for it seems to give us the reason why Paul VI wears the breastpiece of the Levitical high priest.
Not only had the famous Pontiff of Tolerance permitted "salvific dialogue" with our " separated brethren" who never thought of converting to our religion, and with the Communists, with whom he dreamed of establishing "peaceful coexistence and mutual understanding," but also with the Jews, who no longer so invisibly were directing subversion without the big-hearted Pope realizing that there was a tremendous conspiracy jeopardizing the very life of the Church.
John XXIII, the Pope of Tolerance, not only welcomed Khrushchev's son-in-law, but as Roddy writes, entered into extensive dialogue with the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League of the B'nai B'rith, and other Jewish agencies. The conspiracy was on, and could rely upon prominent ecclesiastics opportunely infiltrated into the Catholic Church, among whom Cardinal Augustin Bea, S,J., stood out as the gray figure of the Vatican during the present age of transition.
John XXIII, the Pope of Tolerance, not only welcomed Khrushchev's son-in-law, but as Roddy writes, entered into extensive dialogue with the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League of the B'nai B'rith, and other Jewish agencies. The conspiracy was on, and could rely upon prominent ecclesiastics opportunely infiltrated into the Catholic Church, among whom Cardinal Augustin Bea, S,J., stood out as the gray figure of the Vatican during the present age of transition.
"Though Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were better evangelists than historians," writes Roddy, "their writings, according to Catholic dogma, were divinely inspired and to amend them, therefore, would be as impossible as changing the center of the sun." This Jewish writer is stupid enough to question the historical accuracy of the Holy Gospel, in order to eliminate its evidence about the collective liability of the people of Israel in Jesus' Passion and death.
This notwithstanding, he quotes the Catholic doctrine which Cardinal Bea's "experts" forgot, namely that Holy Writ has divine inspiration, which guarantees the historical accuracy and faith of the evangelists. To change the Gospel, even under the guise of ecumenism, would indeed wreck the Faith. The inviolability of Holy Writ makes the famous declaration of Vatican II on the Jews inconsistent and ambiguous.
He who reads Roddy's article attentively will be very surprised at the large number of Jews who during the time of the Council, worked out that famous Conciliar statement exempting them from any liability for the Lord's Passion and death. This includes the American Jewish Committee, the B'nai B'rith, the Jewish World Congress, etc. Things did not seem to go very well at Rome, from where Max Schuster' filled the pages of The New York Times, the Jewish newspaper with the largest circulation in the world, in order to prepare public opinion. Fritz Becker of the Jewish World Congress wrote: "We do not have the same viewpoints Americans have about printing it." In other words: "Let us be more discrete." However, the Vatican approved these topics for publication, since the trip of Paul VI to the Holy Land had just taken place, and public opinion had to be diverted from the real goals of the Pontiff.
Roddy wrote:
An expert in public relations would have said that the Holy See [not the Holy See but Paul Vl] had shown little skill while in the Holy Land. When Paul prayed beside the bearded Orthodox Patriarch, Athenagoras, at the Jordanian
sector, everything was all right, but when he entered Israel, he had cutting words
for the author of The Vicar [a Jew's slanderous word against Pius XII ] and gave a speech encouraging the Jews to convert. His visit was so short that he did not even make any public mention of the name of the young country he was visiting.
Paul VI's steps had to be diplomatically concealed under the veil of a pious pilgrimage, for the goals of that trip were not disclosed at the time. Only as time passed and further events took place could diligent observers progressively discover Pope Montini's secret aims in traveling to the Holy Land. That is why Paul VI spent more time in Jordan than in Israel and pretended to ignore the latter; that is why he spoke about conversion of the Jews, though in a superficial and delicate way. This was his elemental duty as a Pope, the successor of Peter.
Nevertheless, after this visit, he started wearing
the ephod and the breastpiece of judgment of the Levitical high priest on his chest. In his article Roddy completes the deceitful trick: "The Vatican observers who analyzed the activities of Paul VI while in the Holy Land considered there was less hope of a statement in favor of the Jews."
This phrase tries to convey the impression that there was a disagreement among the various elements of international Jewry engaged in the job of convincing the Conciliar Fathers as to the criteria and actions to be carried on.
This, however, is but a typical astute Jewish maneuver showing various fronts to give us the impression there is division among their forces. This is why Roddy adds:
There was a more optimistic mood at the New York Waldorf·Astoria. There, the guests celebrating the anniversary of Beth Israel Hospital, got to know that, years ago, Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver [the name Silver is
characteristicallyJewish and belongs to some of the most skillful initiates of the Jewish-Masonic
conspiracy) had spoken with Francis Cardinal Spellman about Israel's efforts to get a seat at the United Nations. Spellman said that to aid this cause he would personally address the South American governments and invite them to support his deep wish that Israel be admitted into that world organization, By that time the "American Pope" (Spellman), at a meeting of the American Jewish Committee, said it was "absurd to maintain"'there is or could be any hereditary guilt."
This affirmation by the Cardinal from New York is false, of course, and shows a lack of theological and historical background. All men who through ordinary generation descend from Adam, come into this world with "hereditary guilt."
"In quo omnes peccaverunt" says Saint Paul
- in Adam we all sin. Personal guilt is not hereditary but, even among men, collective guilt is. In Germany the children of the so-called war criminals are still paying Israel for the damage the Jews claim they suffered from Hitler's regime.
- in Adam we all sin. Personal guilt is not hereditary but, even among men, collective guilt is. In Germany the children of the so-called war criminals are still paying Israel for the damage the Jews claim they suffered from Hitler's regime.
It was the Catholic Church in the United States which, acting in a pragmatic, rather than theological, way, most efficiently aided, fostered, and supported the Jewish claims to the extent of having the famous Conciliar
statement passed. Monsignor Higgins, from the National Catholic Welfare Conference of Washington, D.C. , obtained for the Jew, Arthur J. Goldberg, then a Justice of the Supreme Court, a personal appointment with Paul VI. And Rabbi Heschel", fostered by Cushing, the Boston Cardinal, got another personal audience for himself and Schuster. "The audience of the Rabbi with Paul at the Vatican, as well as the meeting of Bea with the members of the American Jewish Committee in New York, were granted on the condition that they would be kept secret. But when conservatives got to know about these secret conferences at the top they began to point to the American Jews as the new power behind the Church."
At the Council the Cardinals from Saint Louis and Chicago, Joseph Ritter and Albert Meyer, demanded that the stronger scheme be restored, and Richard Cardinal Cushing demanded that the Council deny that the Jews had incurred
the crime of deicide. The Auxiliary Bishop of San Antonio, Steven Leven, stated: "We must wipe out this word, deicide, from the Christian vocabulary, in order that it may never again be used against the Jews." But history and Holy Writ cannot be amended by the whim or compromises of men gathering at a pastoral council.
Following his well-known way of affirming verbally what he condemns in deeds, and vice versa, Paul VI, on Palm Sunday at an open air Mass in Rome, spoke about the crucifixion and said the Jews were the principal characters in
Jesus' death. At Segni near Rome, Bishop Luigi Carli wrote two sound articles, published as booklets, with evidence taken from Scripture and theology, demonstrating that the Jews at the time of Christ, and their descendants up to
our times, were collectively guilty of Jesus Christ's death.
However, Bea, the Cardinal of Jewish descent, after affirming his secretariat had absolute control
over the statement that was being prepared in favor of the Jews, said the Pope had spoken for simple and pious people, not for cultured persons, and the opinion of the Bishop of Segni was definitely not that of the secretariat he
presided over and managed in secret connection with the Jewish agencies. In other words the preaching of the Pope was not to be taken very seriously, for he had not spoken to cultured people, but to ignorant people; there is one truth for cultured people and another for the simple and ignorant. As to what Msgr. Carli had written, it had to be rejected without refutation, because it was not consistent with the "infallible" thought of the Secretariat for Christian Unityand its supreme head, the German Augustin Cardinal Bea, S.J.
The World Council of Churches also agreed with this conspiracy, for later on Paul VI paid a scandalous visit to its headquarters and delivered an even more scandalous speech. At Geneva, Dr. Willem Visser't Hoff, the head of the
Council, told two American priests that, if the press reports on the famous statement in favor of the Jews were true, the ecumenical movement would be stopped. This was a way of pressuring the Conciliar Fathers. At Rome, Cardinal Cushing brought pressure to bear, while in Germany an anonymous group worked for Jewish-Christian friendship. "Now," these unknown persons said, "there is a crisis of confidence vis-a-vis the Catholic Church."
Another Jesuit, Fr. Gus Weigel, an old friend of Heschel, also worked in the dark to draw out the longed-for statement. Later on the Rabbi wrote, "I asked him whether he really thought that it were ad maiorem Dei gloriam that there be no more synagogues, seder meals, or prayers in Hebrew." Weigel is already in the grave, and Heschel took care not to give us his answer.
In this affair, just as in the dialogue for reconciliation with the Masons, the Jesuits
stood in a decisive position. A careful study of these occurrences poses a deep problem about the grave external and internal crises the Society of Jesus has undergone in its history.
Jewish lobbyists were very much interested in getting the famous Conciliar statement, and thought that the people of Israel had been sitting on the defendant's seat for four years, while the Conciliar Fathers were deeply divided as to opinions.
Joseph Roddy makes this point:
This delay was perfectly understandable on political grounds, but few people wanted to attribute it to religious motives. The current head of the Holy See, the Pope, was firmly convinced that a majority or unanimous vote had to be gotten every time an important issue was at stake. Due to the principle of collegiality, according to which all bishops help the Pope rule over the Church, any important issue divided the Episcopal College into two groups: the progressivists and the conservatives. The Pope's role consisted of reconciling both wings. To remedy these divisions in the Episcopal College, the Pope had to resort either to persuasion or to imposition, which upset the principle of contradiction. When one faction said that Holy Writ alone was the Church's source of teaching, the other contended there were two sources, Writ and Tradition. To bridge both positions, the statement in favor of the Jews was reworded to include some personal touches of Paul, including the affirmation that there are two sources of revelation, while it was suggested that the opposite approach is worth studying. When those who disagreed with the statement on religious freedom said it could contradict the doctrine that Catholicism is the sole and true Church, a similar solution came down from the fourth floor of the Vatican to the Conciliar room. Consequently, this statement on religious freedom begins with the doctrine of the one true Church which, in the conservatives' mind, preserves the Church's traditional doctrine. Then they are satisfied with this part of the statement, without realizing the rest of it contradicts or denies the opening affirmation.
The great Bishop Carli was right then and he is still right now
General sketch of the revolutionary council
Council Fathers admit ambiguity (How can one be bound by such a thing?)