Paul V I and Chaos
Here we have Paul VI: always ambiguous, always irresolute, trying to build a bridge between affirmation and denial, between being and non-being.
Both of these statements of the Council evidence that the Holy Spirit was absent from the Conciliar room. When John XXIII said that the Council was barely pastoral, he closed the doors to the Holy Spirit. The post-Conciliar Church opposed the clear, immutable, infallible doctrine of the pre-Conciliar Church.
Though Pope Montini is a skillful politician, he was not able to merge the opposite poles, and he caused a permanent schism in Christ's Church. Our very enemies, despite their own interests and the enormous advantages Paul's policies have given to them, avow that universal agreement about those famous statements of Bea and the Council has not been reached. Perhaps today when the majoriry of the episcopate has joined the openly progressivist party, when sound studies on theology have been replaced by pastoral concern, when through successive acts of surrender we have become more accepting of things that are absolutely opposite to revealed truth, the discussion at the Council would have been less violent and the vote more unanimous. Nevertheless, the Church should keep immutable the doctrine received from its apostolic sources.
The declaration promulgated on October 28, 1965, reads as follows:
Although the Jewish authorities and those people who followed them pressed to have Christ killed (John 19:6), what Christ suffered in His Passion cannot be imputed to the then living Jews or to today's Jews without any distinction. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews may not bedepicted as rejected by God or cursed, as if it followed from Holy Writ. Then take care that, in the catechistic work or the preaching of God's Word, nothing be taught that is inconsistent with the Gospel's truth and Christ's spirit.
Moreover, the Church, which rejects any persecution against any human being, takes into account the heritage it shares with the Jews and, not inspired by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, regrets hatred, persecutions, and movements promoted by anti·Semitism against the Jews at any time and by
any person.
Even disregarding the teachings of Holy Writ and the Church's Tradition, the above is a regretful statement! Fallacy was used to conceal the historical and theological reality, for it could not have been destroyed. We all know that God Himself established a certain solidariry in the Jewish people, the former people of the divine predilection in both divine blessings and curses. It is evident that not all Jews living at Christ's time were present in Pilate's courtroom, nor did they ask for our Lord's crucifixion and death. It is also evident that even the Jews who were present were not personally responsible to the same extent their leaders were, for the leaders not only pressed, but also made themselves and their people liable for the drama of Calvary. It was not they who physically whipped Christ or put a crown of thorns on His head and crucified Him, but they were the intellectual perpetrators of the deicide and principally responsible for all of the sufferings of the Lord in His Holy Passion. Finally, taking into account Israel's divine choice and the collective ingratitude of its people, it becomes evident that the liability, both jointly and severally, still falls upon those who, today as yesterday, would ask for His Passion and death again.
If the Church is the new Israel, as the Council avows, it follows that the old Israel has lost its privileges, and is now a people rejected by God. This is what follows from Holy Writ, unless we change its meaning. Either we are with Christ or against Christ.
Below are some passages from my book With Christ or Against Christ:
It is convenient to stress a fundamental point on which basis some people are trying to exonerate the Jewish people of any liability for Christ's death. We shall begin by defining some ideas, even if this means we will have to repeat already stated thoughts. There are personal and collective guilts. There is personal responsibility only when there is personal sin or crime. On the other hand, there can be, and in fact is, collective responsibility when communities, through their leaders or representatives. gravely harm the inalienable rights of individuals or other communities. For instance, although not all Germans were personally guilty of the wartime atrocities imputed to Hitler, all Germans were held responsible,jointly and severally, to the extent that they had to indemnify in full those who claimed to have suffered damages, particularly the Jews. National solidarity caused all Germans and each one of them to be charged with collective
responsibility for the crimes imputed to Hitler and his government, although it is evident that not all Germans living at that time, not to mention all Germans living today, can be held personally responsible for those apparent crimes. The children of that period have had to pay the tremendous penalty for the collective
responsibility for the crimes imputed to Hitler and his government, although it is evident that not all Germans living at that time, not to mention all Germans living today, can be held personally responsible for those apparent crimes. The children of that period have had to pay the tremendous penalty for the collective
guilt of all Germans.
In like manner, there is a twofold responsibility before God, namely, the personal responsibility each one of us assumes for his own or individual sins, and the collective responsibility belonging to human communities, especially when these communities are united according to a divine plan embracing and enclosing such communities. In biblical language, the chiefs of the race are identified with their respective descendants, which builds up a joint moral personality with these chiefs. As we have said, this solidarity is tighter and more universal when it has been established by God Himself to develop divine projects. This was the solidarity God established between Adam and all his descendants with respect to our rise to the divine life; such also is the solidarityGod instituted for the Hebrew people who, as aforesaid, were collectively bound to prepare for Christ's advent.
Paul V I and Chaos
The Hebrews themselves have always avowed and most zealously defended the God-instituted racial solidarity existing among them. Any Jewish book, including the Talmud, makes reference to this racial solidarity. The great fallacy of Jewry and Vatican II, however, consists of defending this solidarity only as to the blessings, not the damnations and punishments the Lord inflicted upon them due to their infidelity.
Just as Divine Messianism, the redeeming plan and the divine choice to prepare the way for the coming Messiah, was the source of divine blessings for the Israelite people and the basis of all their greatness, so Jewish Messianism, a denial and attack upon divine rights, was, is, and will be the sign of disapproval and punishment of a betrayed and angry God for these people. The option cannot be avoided: Either Christ and His blessings, or the Antichrist and his curses.
The solidarity of blessings that according to the divine design were enjoyed by all Israelites ... logically entails the solidarity of divine punishment and curse deserved by the Hebrew people due to the aggressive incredulity of their leaders.
Those divine blessings or promises of divine love were conditional, not absolute.
It was not God who failed to perform His part; it was Israel which, through its leaders, parted from God. Infidelity brought the divine curse.God had promised His people His blessings, provided they fulfilled his commandments: "If thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe and to do all His commandments which I command thee this day, then the Lord thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth .... " These divine blessings were conditional upon a rigid fulfillment ofthe divine law. If the people of Israel refused to accept God's precepts practically, if they attempted to throw off the yoke of His divine law, the Lord would also launch the fury and punishments of his infinite just ice: "But it shallcome to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe and to do all His commandments and His statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee: Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field. Cursed shall be thybasket and thy store. Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy and, the increase of thy cows and the flocks of thy sheep. Cursed shalt thou be when thou earnest in, and cursed shalt thou be when thou goest out ... " (Deut.28:15- 19).
God's Word has been written. "Heaven and earth will pass away, but this word will not pass away."
In the parable of the householder who let his vineyard to husbandmen, when the landlord sent his servants to receive the fruits, they killed them. When last of all he sent his own son, the husbandmen caught him, cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him also. Here the Divine Master makes a clear allusion to the ingratitude and perfidy the people of Israel returned to God for His predilection. That is why Christ ends by saying: "Aufererur a vobis regnum, Dei,
et debitur gentifacientifructus eius" ("The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. ") (Matt. 21 :43).
The Jewish masses, and especially its leaders, rejected Christ's invitations and resisted at the efforts of the apostles to convert them, so that they remained outside the Church, the vineyard and the kingdom of God, into which the Gentiles flowed from everywhere. A hundred times Jehovah had proclaimed Himself His people's liberator and Savior and the Messiah had to be, first of all, the Redeemer of the Jews, for Zion had been appointed beforehand as the center of the Messianic theocracy and converging point for the Gentile nations.
But once the Jews rejected divine Messianism, proclaimed their materialistic Messianism, and slew the Savior, only the Gentiles, without passing through the synagogue, could enter the Church. They continue to do so almost alone, while the Jews are excluded, despite the fact that their rights seemed to be preponderant and, in their mind, exclusive.
Saint Paul devotes three chapters of his Epistle to the Romans to solve this enigma. Without denying the indisputable privileges with which God wanted to favor Israel, he affirms it was the Gentiles, who seemed to be nothing to God, and for whom God was nothing, who were called to the Faith, while the holy people, the sacerdotal race, the household of Jehovah were excluded. The legitimate heirs were disinherited and the legitimate children were replaced by intruders; God's promises seem to have been forgotten and the covenant broken. How can one reconcile all this with God's fidelity and divine justice?
Jewish claims are based upon their inveterate twisted interpretation of the Lord's promises. They invoke the name of Abraham as if it were an absolute safeguard against every evil, be their behavior what it may. They feel Israel's blood is sort of a sacrament that will save them ex opere operato, notwithstanding their personal mood. Here we find a certain parallel between Jewish claims and Lutheran claims. To the Hebrews, the blood of Abraham alone, and to the Protestants, faith alone, are pledges of salvation. The Hebrews
forget there is an Israel according to the flesh, those who have Abraham's blood, and an Israel according to the spirit. Nothing is owed to the former; to the latter belong the promises. "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel; neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children." (Rom.9:6- 7).
The unbelief of the Jews caused the Old Covenant to break and the New Covenant, the New Testament, to be born. This made the ancient blessings accrue to the Church founded by Jesus Christ, the new "people of God," qui
non ex sanguinibus, neque ex voluntate viri, sed ex Deo nati sunt (which is not formed out of the blood or by the will of man, but by those who have been born out of God, that is, to the supernatural, divine life).
On the other hand, Jews have been traditionally acknowledged as disbelievers and callous-hearted. Even Isaiah regretted that callousness and said: "Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called by my name. I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh i a way that was not good, after their own thoughts." (Is. 65:2). Present unbelief, the object of so much amazement and scandal, is but an extra case in the records of the apostasy of the Jewish people.
After the above, Vatican II 's famous statement becomes incomprehensible.
It reads: "The Jews may not be depicted as rejected by God or cursed, as if it followed from Holy Writ." One would have to amend or suppressthe holy books to be able to accept this pastoral approach of the Council which,
disputing Scripture, dogma, Tradition, the writings of the Holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and historical truth, endeavors to exonerate the Jews from their guilt in order to please our deadly enemies who maintain a stand ofrebellion and denial with regard to Christ and His Church
.
.
On the other hand, we must bear in mind as Saint Paul affirms, that Israel's misfortune is neither total nor definitive. It is not total, for there have always been sincere converts from Judaism (we are not speaking about the"marranos," fake converts or crypto-Jews) who in acknowledging Christ as Messiah and His divinity, have entered the Church, joined spiritual Israel and turned back to be children of the predilection. It is not definitive, because as Saint Paul affirms, the conversion of the Jewish people will be one of the signs to appear before the Second Advent of the Redeemer, who will judge the living
and the dead.
Just as it is absurd to affirm that every Jew, merely because he is a Jew, is a criminal. it is equally absurd to affirm that every Jew, merely because he is a Jew, is unable to commit any crime, including the crime of crimes, the crime of deicide.
To avoid the effect of fallacious propaganda designed to disorient public opinion and smash our defense of everything we are and believe in, we must be precise about the meanings of some ideas. On the one hand we have antiSemitism, this crime against mankind (perhaps against Divinity also) that, as mentioned before, has never existed. In the presence of crimes apparently committed against Jews, the crimes of genocide of thousands or millions of people committed by the Jews are expunged or do not exist, since the victims
are Christians. On the other hand, we have the reaction of the Free World against the atrocious secular misdeeds of cabalistic Talmudic Judaism. The racist, determinist, materialist type of anti-Semitism our enemies complain of has never been cultivated by Christians.
To the extent he was a man, Jesus Christ was a Jew. Not only were the apostles and the first believers of the Church Jews, but countless famous supporters of the Christian cause were also. The Jew,just by being a Jew, is not
necessarily bound to do wrong; he can be, and in many cases is, a doer of good.
Christ also died for them, and they received the call to faith and salvation before we did. The Catholic Church condemns this so-called anti-Semitism, just as it condemns any racial discrimination, just as it condemns all the crimes ofJudaism, Communism, and Masonry.
Christianity is the antithesis of cabalism and Talmudism. They struggle against Christ the Redeemer; they thirst for world domination over all peoples and nations; they perpetuate the synagogue of Satan, the Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus of Nazareth to death.
After the above comments, based on Roddy's article concerning the Jewish problem in God's Church, we believe the wearing of the ephod and thebreastpiece of judgment of the Levitical high priest by Paul VI on his chest, as the photographs show, has exceptional and decisive importance, especially taking into account the secret relationship Pope Montini, personally and through his associates, has had with the leaders of the Jewish mafia right from the beginning of his Pontificate.
"The Montinian Church "
1. All Catholics, living and dead, are collectively guilty for the crimes committed by the Non-Catholic Nazis and Jews rhetorically hammer away about our putative collective guilt.
2. No Jew alive today, and no Jews back then, are/were collectively guilty for the grave crime of Deicide, a crime than which none greater can even be imagined and we Catholics are, daily, exempting them from any criticism because anti-semitism (a racist slur never defined because a definition would limit its application) while pretending they can be saved apart from Faith in Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.
That is, only Christian Catholics can be collectively guilty but never collectively blessed, and not one Jew can be collectively guilty but must be praised as being the heirs of the promises, the blessings.
This is half-assed theology. The Covenants with the Jews brought with them Blessings and Curses and the Messiah-Deniers were/are cursed because they broke the covenants but we Catholics speak only of the Covenants and the Blessings and never the curses as we go around making apologies for this, that, and the other things.
Have you ever heard a Rabbi apologise - for anything?
All Blessings and No Curses makes every man Jack Jew a dull soul.
Look, ABS does not know about you, dear reader, but there is not enough booze in existence to make me swallow that spiritual sewage.