Pope Pius XII who came to the papal throne in 1939 was certainly aware of the threat that modernism posed to the Church; not only did he complain about it being taught covertly in seminaries, he more than once was known to have stated that, even though he was the last Pontiff to hold the line on innovation, he would hold it firmly. To quote him directly, “après moi, le déluge.”7
Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli who took the name of John XXIII.9
Something new now happened. For the first time we had a Pope that was welcomed by the liberal press, a man characterized as a “simple peasant,” and a “man of the people.” He was neither. Far more accurate is the evaluation of Robert Kaiser, the correspondent for Time Magazine accredited to Vatican II and an intimate of John XXIII. Kaiser describes him as “a political genius,” and a “quiet and cunning revolutionary.”10
We now acknowledge that for many, many centuries the blindness has covered our eyes, so we no longer see the beauty of Thy chosen people and no longer recognize in its face the features of our first-born brother. We acknowledge that the mark of Cain is upon our brow.49
49 W. Keller, Diaspora, (Harcort: N.Y., 1969). While no one denies that individual Catholics may have been guilty of lacking true charity for the Jews, one can never accuse the Church itself—a perfect society and the spotless Bride of Christ, of lacking such. To do so is blasphemy. John XXIII also presumed to change Scripture by deleting the word perfidious in relation to the Jews who crucified Christ. This is to forget or ignore the fact that not all Jews were perfidious, but those responsible for Christ’s death. Can one imagine the Jews changing a word of Torah, or deleting sections of the Talmud that are offensive to Christians?
Pope Paul VI:
“We moderns, men of our own day, wish everything to be new. Our old people, the traditionalists, the conservatives, measured the value of things according to their enduring quality. We instead, are actualists, we want everything to be new all time
to be expressed in a continually improvised and dynamically unusual form” (L’Osservatore Romano, April 22, 1971)
Thus on October 16, 1968 he told the Roman Clergy that “it would be easy, and even perhaps our duty to rectify” the serious disorders spreading within the Church, but that it would be better for “the good people of God to do it themselves.” He continued: “You will have noticed my dear friends to what extent the style of Our government of the Church seeks to be pastoral, fraternal, humble in spirit and form. It is on this account that, with the help of God, We hope to be loved.
Lest there should be any doubt about Montini’s humanism and his cult of man, consider the following address given the Fathers gathered at the Council on December 7th, 1965:
The Catholic Church has also, it is true, been much concerned with man, with man as he really is today, with living man, with man totally taken up with himself, with man who not only makes himself the center of his own interests, but who dares to claim that he is the end and aim of all existence. . . . Secular, profane, humanism has finally revealed itself in its terrible shape and has, in a certain sense, challenged the Council. The religion of God made man has come up against the religion (for there is such a one) of man who makes himself God. And what happened: An impact, a battle, an anathema. That might have taken place, but it did not. It was the old story of the Samaritan that formed the model of the Council’s spirituality. It was filled only with an endless sympathy. Its attention was taken up with the discovery of human needs—which became greater as the son of the earth makes himself greater. . . . Do you at least recognise this its merit, you modern humanists who ranscendence of the things supreme, and come to know our new humanism: We also, we We also, we more than anyone else, have the cult of man.
54 His father, a banker employed by the Vatican, came from a Jewish family, and his mother was a convert from Judaism at the time of her marriage. Now, no traditional Catholic can have any objection to his Jewish ancestry. What is however significant is that no record of his baptism can be found. If in fact he was never baptized, then his Orders are totally invalidated (Myra Davidoglou, La Voie, Cahier No. 5 [France, Imbert-Nicolas, Dec. 1982]).