The Amulet of Pope Paul VI, who will be Canonised by Franciscus

Years ago, ABS downloaded a free online book, The Montinian Church and he has copied and pasted a chapter from it in the hope it will cause the scales to fall from men's eyes.

Recently, ABS did a search for the book and it was not to be found but today it has resurfaced but who knows for how long.

Download it now is you want it because it is an interesting read:

https://tinyurl.com/y8osy2pr



Prolly, readers have heard of the bizarre actions of soon-to-be Canonised, Pope Paul VI, when he used to wear the symbol of the Jewish High Priest along with his Papal symbols.

What the hell was he doing if not Judaising?

In any event, a main reason why ABS posted this chapter is the false claim of Vatican Two that the Jews are not cursed.

They are and all one has to do to prove that is to read Holy Writ and the covenants established by God with the Jews.

Those covenants came with both blessings and curses yet the second vatican council "taught" the Jews are not cursed which is a direct contradiction of Holy Scripture.

Since the errors of Vatican Two, the Catholic Church has only become more subservient to our moral enemies, the Jews, and we have been cursed with a Pope who wants to do exactly what his father in the faith did (Pope Paul VI) - please our enemies and befog the truth about the Messias-Deniers.

Lord have Mercy

1 Thess 2:15 Jews the enemy of mankind

St. John Chrysostom:

Ver. 14, 15, 16. For you, brethren, became imitators of the Churches of God, which are in Judæa in Christ Jesus: for you also suffered the same things of your own countrymen, even as they did of the Jews; who both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and drove out us, and please not God, and are contrary to all men; forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved; to fill up their sins always: but the wrath has come upon them to the uttermost.

For you, he says, became imitators of the Churches of God which are in Judæa. This is a great consolation. It is no wonder, he says, that they should do these things to you, inasmuch as they have done it also to their own countrymen. And this too is no little proof that the Preaching is true, that even Jews were able to endure all things. For you also,he says, have suffered the same things of your own countrymen, even as they did of the Jews. There is something more in his saying, as they also did in Judæa; it shows that everywhere they rejoiced, as having nobly contended. He says therefore, that you also suffered the same things. And again, what wonder is it, if to you also, when even to the Lord they dared do such things?

Do you see how he introduces this as containing great consolation? And constantly he adverts to it; and upon a close examination one may find it in nearly all his Epistles, how variously, upon all occasions of temptation, he brings forward Christ. Observe accordingly, that here also, when accusing the Jews, he puts them in mind of the Lord, and of the sufferings of the Lord; so well does he know that this is a matter of the greatest consolation.

Who both killed the Lord, he says— but, perhaps, they did not know Him—assuredly they did know Him. What then? Did they not slay and stone their own prophets, whose books even they carry about with them? And they did not do this for the sake of truth. There is therefore not only a consolation under the temptations, but they are reminded not to think that (the Jews) did it for the truth's sake, and be troubled on that account. And drove out us, he says. And we also, he says, have suffered numberless evils. And please not God, and are contrary to all men; forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles, that they may be saved. Contrary to all men, he says. 

How? Because if we ought to speak to the world, and they forbid us, they are the common enemies of the world. They have slain Christ and the prophets, they insult God, they are the common enemies of the world, they banish us, when coming for their salvation. What wonder if they have done such things also to you, when they have done them even in Judæa? Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles, that they might be saved. It is a mark of envy therefore to hinder the salvation of all. To fill up their sins always. But the wrath has come upon them to the uttermost.What is to the uttermost? These things are no longer like the former. There is here no return back, no limit. But the wrath is near at hand. Whence is this manifest? From that which Christ foretold. For not only is it a consolation to have partakers in our afflictions, but to hear also that our persecutors are to be punished. And if the delay is a grievance, let it be a consolation that they will never lift up their heads again; or rather he has cut short the delay, by saying, THE wrath, showing that it was long ago due, and predetermined, and predicted.




Chapter XXI

THE AMULET OF POPE MONTINI

In his Counter-Reformation. the illustrious Abbe Georges de Nantes published an article which caused great impact all over Europe. It appeared in the November, 1970 issue under the title, "The Amulet of the Pope." 

May I quote from this article:

In Paris Match magazine, August 29,1970, in an article by Robert Serrou, "The Next Pope Will Be a Frenchman," is an illustration of a large photograph of the Pope and Cardinal Villot. I looked upon those two hermetic countenances in which the Church's destiny was concealed. But, what is that which we discover on Paul VI's chest over his pectoral cross? It is a curious jewel that I don't seem to remember ever being worn by any Pope. 

The object must be made out of gold, square, decorated with twelve precious stones set in four rows of three each. It hangs, in a very peculiar way, from a gold cord which ties around his neck and is next to the Cross of Christ. They seem tied to each other.

I am almost afraid to find out, but without a doubt, this appears to be the object described in chapter 28 of the book of Exodus. There we read about the

ephod and breastplate of judgment which Aaron, the Jewish high priest, and his successors must have carried as a ritual ornament. Over the 12 stones were inscribed the names of the 12 tribes of Israel as a "memorial before the Lord for

ever." (Ex. 28:29). Paul VI was wearing the insignia of the Jewish high priest, Caiphas, the breastplate of judgment, around his neck and over his heart.

Who knows when and why and from whom he received this amulet? Is the Pope trying to imply that he is a direct descendant of the Levitical high priest? Is the Pontiff of the Catholic Church turning to the God of Israel? Or could he be preparing for the restoration of the Jewish religion as the religion of pure monotheism, of the most Holy Book, of the universal Covenant?

A Jewish sabbatical cult has developed this year in the Katholikentag, the annual German Catholic festival, and, in Brussels, Cardinal Suenens has

announced a forthcoming Council of Reconciliation to be held in Jerusalem. We

should also remember that the B'nai B'rith and the Freemasons dream of the construction of a "Temple of Understanding" in the Holy City similar to the one existing in New York. A model of this future temple was given to the Pope some  time ago as a symbol of ecumenism. Everything is falling into place!

Who can tell us about this "pectoral" and other obscure signs? Do we have the right to know if the Pope, by wearing the breastplate of judgment of Caiphas, the Levitical high priest, is pretending to assume an old Jewish ritual without

fear of Israel? Or is he going to try to conduct the Christian churches into "universal Judaism" and restore the Levitical priesthood to Jerusalem? What the amulet is telling us is ambiguous.

Up to now, the crucifix has never had to share its position with any other ritualistic symbol. Could it be that now, all of a sudden, the Pope has less regard for the crucifix? Could it be that it will soon be the last time that the cock crows in the Vatican? What do we know? We, the Catholic flock of Catholic sheep, know nothing of the long-range plans of our Shepherd, the Pope ..

Georges de Nantes

The service the renowned Abbe of Nantes has rendered the Church in revealing what was being whispered within Church circles, amidst great scandal and astonishment, about the ritual pendant belonging to the Levitical high priest and appearing in almost all photographs of Paul VI after his trip to the Holy Land is doubtless an extraordinary one. We are unable to forecast or estimate its importance, but perhaps we have here the key to understand the current subversion in the Church of Christ, what Pope Montini himself called the "auto-demolition" of Christianity.

In Rome, on page 603 of the November 18, 1970 issue of /I Borghese, a widely circulated magazine, a sensational article was published under the

following impressive headlines: "The Bronze Gate" Paul VI: Pope or 'High

Priest'?" We quote from that article:

The moral effect at the Vatican has been enormous, almost shocking. Rumors had been circulating for a long time in Vatican circles without anyone daring to expose the fact. It was only recently that Abbe Georges de Nantes disseminated the news that the sovereign Pontiff of the Apostolic Roman Catholic Church occasionally wears the insignia of the Hebrew high priest, Caiphas, along with his pectoral cross on his mozzetta. The echo of this news behind the Bronze Gate has been resounding.

Nevertheless, there can be no doubt: the shape, color and embellishment of this badge corresponds to the description given in the Bible. No Pope in the preceding two thousand years had even worn a jewell like this, minutely described in chapter 28 of Exodus, one of the books of the Bible. 

John Baptist Montini most certainly wears it. Why? No one dares divulge the obscure motives for this decision of his, but everybody agrees about the possibility of intentional ambiguity on the part of the Pontiff. This object, made of pure gold, is square, enhanced by twelve precious stones arranged in four rows of three each, and hangs from the neck by means of a golden cord made of interlaced rings ending in a tassel. All twelve precious stones have different colors.

This is the ephod of the Hebrew high priest, known as the breastplate of judgment. Aaron and his issue had to wear it as a ritual ornament, and its precious stones represent Israel's twelve tribes. 

The description of this peculiar thing is to be found in Exodus ... exactly as it can be seen today in many photographs of Paul VI .... 

[Editor's Note: The ephod appears to have been a

linen garment worn under the amulet spoken of by the author. The amulet is

called the "breastpiece of decision" in Exodus 28:29 in the Saint Joseph Edition

of The New American Bible (New York: Catholic Book Publishing, 1970.

Imprimatur: Patrick Cardinal O'Soyle, Archbishop of Washington.)~ the jeweled

amulet is called the "rational of judgment" in the Douay-Rheims version of the

Bible (Rockford, Illinois: TAN Books and Publishers, from the 1899 edition.

Imprimatur: James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop ofBaltimore.)~ in the Revised

Standard Version of The Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha (New

York: Oxford University Press, 1965.), it is called the Ubreastpiece of judgment."

Still another name, the "burse," is assigned to it in the Knox Bible (New York:

Sheed and Ward, 1950. Imprimatur: Bernardus Cardinal Griffin.). The reader is

urged to read the 28th chapter of the book of Exodus for a better explanation of

the items spoken about in this section.]

How long is it since this unbelievable union of the pectoral cross and the badge of the Hebrew high priest took place? To answer this question, we have examined hundreds of photographs. In this way we are able to affirm that the first appearance of this strange amulet on the chest of the Roman Pope dates from at least 1964, some months after his visit to Palestine. It seems logical to deduce that this ritual ornament was given to him on that occasion, since Paul VI visited Israel also.

This is no isolated case or hallucination. The emblem of the Levitical high priest is clearly visible, especially when Paul VI wears his mozzetta, a red mantelet embroidered with white ermine. On such occasions the pectoral cross often cannot be seen in pictures, for the Pope's clasped hands may conceal it, but Aaron's device always appears, for it is connected by means of a large golden piece of cord. Only on one occasion did the strange emblem hang on the white robes of Paul VI without his mozzetta. This was when the Roman Pontiff paid a visit to India and the cameramen surprised him as he was being followed and surrounded by Hindu children.

In various photographs taken during Paul VI's  visits to the holy places of Christendom and at the various sanctuaries, the breastplate of judgment is

always visible. The jeweled breastpiece was conspicuous on many occasions, among them these: at Fumone, when the Pope visited the tomb of Pope Celestino V, the "great refugee~" at Saint Sabina on the Aventino on Ash Wednesday, when the litanies of the saints were sung as amended by the Bugninian liturgy, which now begins with a Stmcle Abraham . . . ; at the Piazza de Spagna, during the homage paid to the Immaculate Virgin; at Saint Agnes; and at Saint Mary of Trastevere. 

The Pope's wearing of this breastpiece is something at least strange if not suspicious, and raises doubt requiring an answer different from the ambiguous silence we are accustomed to receive.

Is this, then, a Masonic deed or an obscure design? 

Someone must explain what this all means . .. . Indeed, it is disconcerting that beside or in place of the pectoral cross of Peter's successor (who still is Christ's Vicar, notwithstanding the contentions of the new theologians), on the chest of the Roman Pontiff, there appears a non-Christian emblem which, for its very richness, is opposite to the

principles of the Church of the Poor.

We do not know what explanation could be given to Paul VI's wearing of this ritual device of the Levitical high priest. The first explanation suggested benevolently by Abbe de Nantes is not quite convincing and cannot b e accepted.

Between Judaism, the religion of the promise, and Catholicism, the religion of the fulfillment of that promise, there is no real continuity, for present

Judaism contumaciously denies that the divine promises of the coming Messiah have been fulfilled in Christ Jesus, the Son of God and the Son of Mary. 

Present religious Judaism rejects the two fundamental dogmas of our religion: the

mystery of the Most Holy Trinity and the mystery of the Incarnation. How could anyone attempt to unite the Jewish religion with genuine Christianity, which is based on these fundamental dogmas? The promise and the preparation lost their reasons to exist when Christ came, and all of religious Judaism lost its legitimacy when Jesus Christ founded His Church, the new Israel, not the Israel according to the flesh, but the Israel according to the spirit.

Now then, the breastpiece was a prominent Jewish emblem. It symbolically represented the twelve tribes of carnal Israel at the ritual celebrations. Nothing, then, justifies the wearing of this ritual object by a Pope, the visible head of the new people of God, the children of the New Covenant.

Even the fact that no previous Pope during the 2,000-year history of the Church has ever worn this ritualistic object of religious Judaism, seems to demonstrate that there is an absolute incompatibility between the profession of our Catholic Faith and the wearing of the ephod or "breastplate of judgment," thoroughly described in the Exodus as characteristic and exclusive of the Levitical high priest.

Since Paul VI wore it publicly, we have the right, and moveover, a grave obligation of conscience to investigate why the Pontiff did so. With good reason Abbe Georges de Nantes was afraid of understanding the only consistent explanation which, on the one hand, may be perfectly consistent and harmonic with other inexplicable deeds of Pope Montini, with his paradoxical Pontificate as a whole, and with all the subversion and auto-demolition inside the Church.

John Baptist Montini wears the breast piece because in his heart, rather than a Pope, he is a Levitical high priest. Consciously or unconsciously, only God knows, he seems to be associated with international Judaism, its mighty leaders, and its destructive tools of Communism and Masonry. On the other hand, in his genealogical line of ancestors we find actual roots of Jewish origin, just as in the cases of other cardinals, monsignors, and theologians who have masterminded this dreadful revolution in God's Church. Indeed I denounce Judaism as the active and most efficient force that, with its immense resources, has prepared this tragedy and harmed not only the Church and souls, but nations and peoples, sowing confusion, nonconformity, and class struggle, as well as civil and international wars which have bathed the whole world in blood and pain.

It is only too painful to conclude the above, but there is an unavoidable dilemma for us: either we save the Church, or we obstinately continue

defending two Popes and a Council guilty of demolishing the unity of the Church.

In the previously-mentioned article in Look magazine, Joseph Roddy wrote: "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." These conservatives were right in suspecting an immense world infiltration of Jews, Masons. Communists, disloyal religious who entered seminaries, novitiates, and all Catholic organizations with the assignment andorders to surreptitiously and discretely attain the leading positions from which they were to launch the internal revolution that had been planned in the dark dens of the Jewish-Masonic-Communist conspiracy. Facts? Evidence? There are more than enough, provided one is not obstinate in accepting them.

To begin with, we have the well-known case of Fr. Tondi, S.J ., who, whilean active member of the Italian Communist Party in his youth, was chosen by the party leaders to actively infiltrate the Society of Jesus. This crypto Communist so successfully passed all the tests in his Jesuitic formation and was so clever in his studies, that at the end of his third probation (the finishing touch

the Society gives its workers), the superiors appointed him to a position of utmost responsibility, that of Prefect of Studies of the Gregorian Pontifical University, the most important philosophical and theological center of the Jesuits and possibly of the whole Church. In his position, this hidden Communist faithfully followed the secret guidelines given by his real hierarch to launch and successfully develop the ideological revolution that later on corrupted the theological and philosophical thought of that most important university. Finally, this Jesuit's connections with the high leaders of Italian and international Communism were disclosed.

In another part of his article, Joseph Roddy wrote the following revealing words:

An advertising firm, close enough to the Vatican to be able to get the Roman addresses of the twenty-two cardinals and bishops coming from abroad to

attend the Council, delivered each of them a copy of a 900-page book, The Plot Against the Church (/I Complotto Contra La Chiesa). Among this book's slanderous pages (here were some traces of trulh. The affirmation contained in the book, that the Church had been infiltrated by Jews, was an efficacious intrigue of the anti-Semites; but it is an undeniable fact that many Jews, ordained as priests, were in Rome working out a declaration in favor of the Jews. 

Among them were Fr. Baum and Msgr. John Oesterreicher, both of whom were members of Cardinal Bea's secretariat. Cardinal Bea himself, according to the Cairo newspaper, Al Gomria, was a Jew named Bejar.

The facts being evident, international Jewry and its spokesman Roddy, could not deny the apparent fact of infiltration, although, as is natural, they take good care not to give us all the names of the infiltrators.

Sometime ago, Bea, Baum, and Oesterreicher (a few names to which wecould add others of crypto-Jews, crypto-Masons, and crypto-Communists

cunningly infiltrated into the Church), began to prepare the current subversionand were able to surreptitiously reach top positions so as to make themselves more effective. Using their personal skills, those chosen for this transcendenta ljob had to have excellent capabilities and the influence of members of the hierarchy, who were no doubt impressed by the apparent zeal of the infiltrators, as well as by convenient flattery and gifts. Given great natural abilities, the chosen ones could not help inspiring confidence and gaining progressive promotions. In intrigue, hypocrisy, and skill, the infiltrator Jews are surpassed only by the devil. In addition, to conduct this intrigue, the Jewish mafia could rely on worthy non-Jewish, Catholic individuals, such as Fr. Timothy Fitzharris O'Boyle, S.J., (aka Malachi Martin) who installed and protected them at the Bible Institute

under the tutelage of the Most Eminent Cardinal Bea, who, as a member of the illustrious Society of Jesus, served as an information center for those engaged in the massive infiltration of the Church.

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.

"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 VI] 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 work against Pius XI I] 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 characteristically Jewish 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 JewishCommittee, 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.

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 Unity and 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 thesole 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.

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 be depicted 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, itbecomes 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

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 solidarity God instituted for the Hebrew people who, as aforesaid, were collectively bound to prepare for Christ's advent.

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 solidari ty only as to the b lessings, 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 peop le 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 e ntails the .'IOlidariry 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 fulfillmen t of the 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 shall come 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 thy basket and thy store. Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land, 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 a llusion 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, nd 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 in 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 suppres the 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 of rebellion 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 publicopinion 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 apparentlycommitted 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 of Judaism, 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 the breastpiece 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

https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/E003_Rational_of_Judgment.htm

https://archive.org/stream/ALetterToTheCardinalsOnPaulVI/A%20Letter%20to%20the%20Cardinals%20on%20Paul%20VI_djvu.txt