“When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place:
he that readeth let him understand.”
“For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Behold I have told it to you, beforehand.”
“But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find,
think you, faith on earth?”
“Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ... the Church will be in eclipse.”
Our Lady of La Salette, Sept. 19, 1846
“For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.” 2 Thessalonians 2:7-11
“In addition, that if ever at any time it shall appear that any… Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church… or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy: (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless…those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.”
Pope Paul IV, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559, §6 (Roman Bullarium Vol. IV. Sec. I, pp. 354-357)
To what extent is Pope Paul IV’s « Cum ex apostolatus officio » still in effect?
From Rome, February 20, 2015,
the Novus Ordo, the New Order anti-Catholic impostor religion
For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Matthew 24:24
The Faithful have long suffered anti-Popes, pretenders to the papacy. An anti-Pope cannot legitimately call or promulgate binding councils, doctrine, morality, decrees, canon law, or rituals. Far from being a “springtime,” the so-called “Second” Vatican Council was a non-binding false Council, a heretical descent into Hell. The “spirit of Vatican 2” was not the Holy Ghost, but Lucifer himself.
“I saw deplorable things: they were gambling, drinking, and talking in the Church; they were also courting women. All sorts of abominations were perpetrated there. Priests allowed everything and said Mass with much irreverence. I saw that few of them were godly, and only a few had sound views on things. I also saw Jews standing under the porch of the Church. All these things caused me much distress.”
“A Man, not Canonically Elected, will be raised to the Pontificate… In those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a Destroyer”
Textile with Saint Francis of Assisi Receiving the Stigmata
14th century A.D., Tuscany, Italy
We Catholics are as free as St. Paul (Galatians 2:11) to publicly resist even a legitimate Pope that is manifestly in error. A Pope is not protected in all his statements or actions. Papal infallibility is quite circumscribed to certain conditions on matters of dogma and morality. A fortiari, we Catholics are bound to resist an anti-Pope, but we do not have the juridical authority to formally declare or depose one. The man who “subsists in” the Chair of Peter today bears at least three marks of an anti-Pope: (1) his manifest heresies, including Marxist liberation theology, homosexualism, conciliarism, collegiality, ecumenism, religious indifferentism, attacking the indissolubility of marriage, and his neo-Judaizing, (2) his Team Bergoglio lobbying before the conclave canonically disqualified him from the papacy, and (3) his “ordination” to the priesthood and “consecration” to the episcopate in a dubious rite. If he is not a priest, or even a Catholic in belief, he cannot be a true Pope. No matter how gross his manifest transgressions, only a future true Pope or Council can make the pertinent formal declarations. The laity have no authority to formally depose a Pope, but we may recognize his manifest heresies, automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication, and automatic loss of offices. See: Pope Paul IV, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559, §6 (Roman Bullarium Vol. IV. Sec. I, pp. 354-357)
Similarly the laity have no canonical authority to discipline abortion “Catholics” (cf. Pelosi and Kaine) or notorious perverts, but we should recognize and expose their manifest errors.
It is a huge irony that Bergoglio chose the name “Francis.” It was St. Francis of Assisi who prophesied that in the End Times, “A Man, not Canonically Elected, will be raised to the Pontificate… In those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a Destroyer.” http://novusordowatch.org/saint-francis-assisi-prophecy-destroyer/
The early Church survived in the catacombs, so too the End Times Church may be in the catacombs, if only metaphorically.
Connect these verses logically:
Since the Bible is inerrant, millennia of Fathers and Doctors of the Church, Popes and Saints have concluded that the true Church will exist until the End of Time, but we are not assured that the Church will be easy to find or be great in numbers. We are also told that God will ensure that only lovers of the Truth will find the Truth. 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12
The diabolical infiltration of the Church accelerated covertly in the 14th century Renaissance—truly a “Renaissance” or “Rebirth” of Babylonian, Egyptian, Roman and Grecian Paganism, Occultism, Kabbalism, the theurgy of “Hermes Trismegistus.” Change agents like Pico Mirandolla, Johannes Reuchlin, Marsilio Ficino, Niccolò Machiavelli, and others attempted to baptize Kabbalism and other paganism as compatible with Christianity. Opponents were marginalized, even excommunicated by the infamously promiscuous and Judaizing “Borgia Pope” Alexander VI. He hanged, burned and scattered the ashes of that faithful, moral, and zealous Italian Dominican Friar Girolamo Savonarola (burned 1498 A.D.). This rebirth of paganism was covertly nurtured under the protection and funding of the Medici usurers and other Judaizing Popes such as Pope Leo X. Leo X’s pontificate straddled the 15th and 16th centuries. That second son of the Florentine ruler “Lorenzo the Magnificent” was the Medici publisher of the most decorative Talmud ever. Such covert infiltration grew and so thoroughly processed the hierarchy and the laity that, five centuries later, the overt Judeo-Luciferian revolution in the Church, the illegitimate “Second Vatican Council,” was little resisted by the mostly stunned and falsely obedient bishops, priests, laity.
See: The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome by Michael Hoffman, ISBN 978-0990954729
available at https://www.amazon.com/dp/0990954722
Judeo-Masonry, in the person of Canon Roca (also known as L'abbé Roca and Paul Roca), anounced their plan in the mid-19th century:
“The new church, which might not be able to retain anything of Scholastic doctrine and the original form of the former Church, will nevertheless receive consecration and canonical jurisdiction from Rome.”
Roca also predicted a liturgical reform. With reference to the future liturgy, he believed “that the divine cult in the form directed by the liturgy, ceremonial, ritual and regulations of the Roman Church will shortly undergo a transformation at an ecumenical council, which will restore to it the venerable simplicity of the golden age of the Apostles in accordance with the dictates of conscience and modern civilization.”
He foretold that through this council will come “a perfect accord between the ideals of modern civilization and the ideal of Christ and His Gospel. This will be the consecration of the New Social Order and the solemn baptism of modern civilization.”
Roca also spoke of the future of the Papacy. He wrote “There is a sacrifice in the offing which represents a solemn act of expiation ... The Papacy will fall; it will die under the hallowed knife which the fathers of the last council will forge. The papal caesar is a host [victim] crowned for the sacrifice.”
Roca enthusiastically predicted a “new religion, new dogma, new ritual, new priesthood.” He called the new priests “progressists” and speaks of the “suppression” of the soutane [cassock] and the “marriage of priests.”[A full account of all of Roca’s quotes here printed is found in Athanasius and the Church of Our Time, by Bp. Rudolph Graber, ISBN 0901072133, pp. 31-40. https://thebooks2017.blogspot.com/2017/01/athanasius-and-church-of-our-time-by.html]
Chilling echos of Roca and The Alta Vendita are to be found in the words of the Rosicrucian, Dr. Rudolph Steiner who declared in 1910 “We need a council and a Pope to proclaim it.”[Ibid., p. 36.]
The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita by John Vennari,
Wikipedia’s acknowledgement of the document:
The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita (commonly called the Alta Vendita) is a document, originally published in Italian in 1859, produced by the highest lodge [“At the head was the alta vendita, to which deputies were chosen from the other vendite.” Catholic Encyclopedia: Carbonari] of the Italian Carbonari and written by “Piccolo Tigre” (“Little Tiger”), which, according to George F. Dillon, was supposedly the pseudonym of a Jewish Freemason.[Ibid.]
The document details an alleged Masonic plan to infiltrate the Catholic Church and spread liberal ideas within it. The Carbonari had strong similarities to Freemasonry and so the document is seen by some as a Masonic document. In the 19th century, Pope Pius IX [“This little booklet reprints a collection of papers — reputedly from 1820s Alta Vendita correspondence — published by authority of Pope Pius IX (1846-1878) in 1859.” Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon (2004-12-15). "Anti-masonry Frequently Asked Questions:"Q 10. Doesn't the Alta Vendita prove that Freemasonry is anti-Catholic?"". Archived from the original on 16 August 2006. Retrieved 2006-08-14.] and Pope Leo XIII both asked for it to be published. It was first published by Jacques Crétineau-Joly in his book L'Église romaine en face de la Révolution in 1859. It was popularised in the English speaking world by Monsignor George F. Dillon in 1885 with his book the War of Anti-Christ with the Church and Christian Civilization.[Republished by Denis Fahey in 1950 as Grand Orient Freemasonry Unmasked as the Secret Power Behind Communism]
See also: Fr. Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga on L'abbé Roca's writings https://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com/2015/01/fr-joaquin-saenz-y-arriaga-on-labbe.html
The predicted outcome was eventually named the Novus Ordo, a “New Order” of religion that is Catholic in name though Judeo-Luciferian in its substance, complete with a treacherous lineage of anti-Popes, including the devil currently “subsisting in” the Chair of Peter.
Indeed, today’s Faithful have been forced out of the church buildings and the Vatican, now surviving metaphorically in the catacombs and deserts—much like their ancestors who, against overwhelming odds, fought Arianism (a Christological heresy named for the heresiarch Arius). During the 3rd and 4th centuries A.D. of the Arian heresy an estimated 90% of the hierarchy and church buildings were occupied by Arian heretics. Eventually the laity, led by St. Athanasius, successfully drove the Arians from the Church (and even caused the semi-Arian Pope Liberius to recant his heresy).
Freemason & Cardinal Mariano Rampolla del Tindaro1843-1913Fast forward five centuries from the Borgias. Following the death of Pope Leo XIII in 1903, the Cardinal Secretary of State Mariano Rampolla was about to be elected by the conclave, but, invoking a nearly forgotten privilege of the Holy Roman Emperor, the Cardinal Patriarch of Krakow Poland, Cardinal Jan Puzyna de Kosielko, arose to nullify the election on behalf of the Austro-Hungarian Hapsburg Emperor Franz Josef, legitimate successor to the Holy Roman Emperor. The Cardinal Patriarch provided the astonished conclave with a dossier compiled by Msgr. Jouin, a Vatican archivist. The dossier proved that Rampolla was a Freemason, hence an occultic Luciferian, a sworn enemy covertly, but actively, engaged in the destruction of the Church.
By the grace of God, Cardinal Giuseppe Sarto became Pope St. Pius X and ascended to the Chair of Peter with the faithful Cardinal Merry del Val named Cardinal Secretary of State. Tragically, Rampolla's influence continued through much of the 20th century due to the influence of Rampolla's protégés, Della Chiesa (Benedict XV), Pacelli (Pius XII), Roncalli (John XXIII), Montini (Paul VI), and Pietro Gasparri (Cardinal Secretary of State 1914-1930). The banking families of Pacelli and Montini were also connected to the Rothschilds. Instead of the usual school and seminary training, from childhood both Pacelli and Montini were tutored under the personal direction of Rampolla. They were so tutored until their last two years before ordination.
For details, see:
The Undermining of the Catholic Church
by Mary Ball Martinez (requiescat in pace), who was for decades a Vatican journalist and insider, ASIN: B0006EZHKS, https://www.amazon.com/undermining-Catholic-Church-Mary-Marti/dp/B0006EZHKS
To ensure that there would never again be a Holy Roman Emperor to invoke privilege against them, the Freemasons assassinated Crown Prince Archduke Ferdinand igniting World War I against the last Catholic Empire. Received history readily reveals the main assassin, Gavril Princeps, and his Freemasonic “Black Hand” Lodge co-conspirators as “anarchists,” but is not so forthcoming about the Christ-reviling religion of Princeps and the the majority of the assassins. On the death of Emperor Franz Josef in 1916, the saintly Karl was raised to the Austro-Hungarian thrones. Emperor Karl immediately sued for peace, but the Freemasonic Prime Ministers of Britain and France repeatedly rejected his surrender for their expressed reason that winning the war was not their main objective, but the destruction of the last Catholic Empire. From the time of his first offer of peace in 1916 until war’s end in 1919, 11 million more were killed and wounded unnecessarily in the Freemasons’ “Great War,” their horrific blood sacrifice to Moloch of the world’s youth. Truly, World War I can only be completely understood as a war against Catholicism, but lies prevail because the winners continue to write and produce expurgated and falsified histories.
For details, see:
A Heart for Europe—The Lives of Emperor Charles and Empress Zita of Austria-Hungary
by James and Joanna Bogle, ISBN-10: 0852441738,
Failing to consolidate control through their First World War and several genocidal Judeo-Bolshevist revolutions, Freemasonry (a servant of Judeo-Luciferianism) prosecuted their Second World War. After that Second World War, Pius XII, protégé of the Freemason Rampolla from childhood, appointed then-Fr. Annibale Bugnini to author the first neo-Judaizing changes in the liturgy. Notwithstanding uninformed “traditionalist” admiration of him, it was Pius XII who promulgated the first of Bugnini’s abominations, alteration in the Roman Missal’s Holy Week liturgy. Montini, through the same Bugnini, finished what Pacelli had started. Masonic documents seized by the Italian police eventually revealed Bugnini, code name “Buan,” was a Master Mason in the notorious Italian “P2” Freemasonic Lodge. Tragically, the truth was exposed decades too late. In the 1950’s Bugnini had already authored the Novus Ordo Missae de novo. Paul VI promulgated that abomination of desolation in the 1960’s. Bugnini’s Freemasonic composition was sold to Catholics using the pseudo-antiquarian lie of a return to the early Church. Voila! A Freemason-authored, Freemason-approved, Freemasonic-protégé-promulgated liturgy, complete with a Prayer over the Gifts lifted from the damnable Talmud.
The Talmudic Touch: The Real Story of the Offertory’s Replacement
by Craig Heimbichner, March, 2004, Catholic Family News, available online at:
Talmudic Benedictions in the Novus Ordo Mass
Under the Code of Canon Law, when then-Archbishop Angelo Roncalli joined a Parisian Freemasonic lodge, he was excommunicated latae sententiae—automatically, no juridical process required. The same automatic punishment applied to Bugnini. Having put himself outside the Church by joining Judeo-Luciferian Freemasonry, Roncalli was ineligible to be elected Pope. Strong evidence suggests that Cardinal Giuseppe Siri had been elected at the conclave of 1958, accepted the papacy, and taken the name Gregory XVII. Before the conclave was closed, quisling Cardinals (led by the French Marxist Cardinal Tisserant, Dean of the College of Cardinals, the papal electors) threated Pope Gregory XVII’s family and the Church. Gregory XVII resigned under duress, but such resignation under duress is not recognized under canon law and so the putative resignee remains Pope. Roncalli was then elected “Pope.” Ironically, Roncalli selected the name John XXIII, duplicating the name of an earlier anti-Pope, Baldassare Cossa who also styled himself “Pope John XXIII”—the Freemasons do enjoy their arcane symbolism and inside jokes.
See: Cardinal Giuseppe Siri, Pope Gregory XVII, The Pope in Red and The Siri Thesis Exposed
The Pope in Red, http://thepopeinred.com/thesis.htm
Having died during his bogus council (some claim that Roncalli repented on his deathbed), Roncalli was succeeded by the sodomite anti-Pope Montini, a man who had put himself outside the Church by heresy and who could not be elected while the legitimate Pope Gregory XVII was alive. Pope Gregory XVII died in 1989, disallowing the elections of Albino Luciani (“John Paul I”) and Wojtyla the Worst (“Saint John Paul II the Great”). Anti-Pope Montini promulgated not only the heretical documents of the “Second” Vatican Council, but also the invalid “Novus Ordo Missa” (Latin for “New Order Mass”).
“Catholic prophecy and the New Testament paint a picture of the last days as a massive spiritual deception aimed to deceive those who intend to practice the true faith (the Catholic Faith), and which leaves the Earth with almost no one maintaining the true faith.
“The prophecy of Our Lady of La Salette, Sept. 19, 1846: “Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ… the Church will be in eclipse.”
“The prophecy of Luke 18:8- “But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on Earth?”
“In the Gospel, Jesus Christ not only informs us that in the last days the true faith would hardly be found on the Earth, but that “in the holy place” itself there will be “the abomination of desolation” (Mt. 24:15), and a deception so profound that, if it were possible, even the elect would be deceived (Mt. 24:24). St. Paul says that the man of sin will sit “in the temple of God” (2 Thess. 2:4). The Apocalypse describes in detail the Whore of Babylon, a false bride (i.e. a Counter Church) which arises in the last days in the city of seven hills (Rome) and which spreads spiritual fornication all over the Earth. The fact that the last days are characterized by a spiritual deception intending to ensnare Catholics proves, rather than disproves, the authenticity of the Catholic Church.…”
Catholic Prophecy foretold that there would be a Great Apostasy and a counterfeit Church in the Last Days
The homosexual infiltration of the Church is incontrovertibly documented in:
The Rite of Sodomy: Homosexuality and the Roman Catholic Church
by Randy Engel, 2006, ISBN 978-0977860135,
A heretic cannot be Pope: http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/6_noheretic_pope.pdf
The Heresies of Anti-Pope Francis, Benedict XVI, John Paul II, John Paul I, Paul VI, and John XXIII – Antipopes of the Vatican II Counter Church
“In the New Mass the Offertory was replaced by a formula from the Talmud, a classic of hate-literature directed against Jesus with an intensity and perversity perhaps never equaled.”
by Craig Heimbichner
This article originally appeared in the March, 2004 issue of Catholic Family News, and back on line by request.
Many articles have been written about the objectionable changes to the Mass which culminated in the Novus Ordo Mass of Paul VI, and scarcely anything of substance can be added to the incisive Ottaviani Intervention or the exhaustive study of Michael Davies in his third volume of Liturgical Revolution. Even Cardinal Ratzinger is on record admitting the practical disaster of the liturgical reform. It is obvious to devout Catholics that the faithful have been submerged during the period of the New Mass in a swamp marked by non-attendance, widespread unbelief, immorality, irreverence, indifferentism, and compromise. Catholics have seen even their formerly orthodox leaders flailing in a quicksand of ambiguity. While the causes of this broad crisis cannot be solely attributed to the changes in the Mass, an important connection exists, since the rule lex credendi, lex orandi (we believe as we pray) remains vitally true. Yet one of the most subtle and blasphemous changes in the prayer of the Mass has been overlooked. We have been told that the Offertory was replaced by a “Jewish table blessing”—a change objectionable enough for a host of reasons. But the reality is far worse: for the Offertory has been replaced by a prayer with no connection to the practices of the Old Testament Israelites, but rather which stems from Christ-rejecting Rabbis who agreed with the Sanhedrin that demanded His death. The astonishing truth is that in the New Mass, the Offertory, was replaced by a formula from the Talmud, a classic of hate-literature directed against Jesus with an intensity and perversity perhaps never equaled. 1 This sacrilege was slipped past the faithful without notice, and deserves exposure as yet one more reason to loudly demand the restoration of a liturgy which honors rather than blasphemes the One Who first said and instituted the Mass itself.
The Offertory had long been a target of the enemies of Christ and His Church, since it clearly expresses the propitiatory content of the Sacrifice of Christ which is repeated in an unbloody manner in the Mass. The was the subject of a stern warning by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei, some of the pretended resurrection of early traditions was patently fraudulent. Nowhere is this more clearly evident than in the supposed revival of a “Jewish table blessing” from the days of the first Jewish converts to Christianity as a replacement for the Offertory. We are supposed to believe that this scrapping of the Offertory marks a return to the type of faith and liturgy of the earliest Church, and furthermore supposedly reminds us of our Jewish roots.
All of these alleged reasons and explanations are simply lies, and their subversive nature is underscored by the fact that they succeeded where Luther failed in eliminating the Offertory which he hated. The lies behind this substitution are truly multiform. First, the Offertory was not replaced by a Jewish table blessing, but by a rabbinical blessing from the Talmud, as we will see below. Second, the Talmud was not written during the life of Christ or His Apostles, and could not have been reflective of anything in the early Church except the traditions of its first enemies. In fact, the Talmud was written in Babylon after the Rabbis had rejected the Messiah—written in fact by Rabbis in full and venomous agreement with that rejection. Third, the Talmudic blessing is part of a list of “blessings” in the Talmud which also contains curses of Christians. Fourth, what we now know as Judaism—the rabbinical swamp of blasphemy and paganism codified in the Talmud—has no connection to the faith of the Old Testament, for it nullifies it (Matthew 15:1-9). Fifth, borrowing any prayer from the Talmud is arguably treason to Christ, for the Talmud—burned by several astute Popes—contains the most horrid blasphemies against both Jesus and Mary known to man, only a few of which we will quote for purposes of documentation.
Before supporting these contentions, it is worth noting that the Second Vatican Council Fathers were all warned that covert forces of Judaism and Freemasonry were about to stage a “coup” at the Council, under the guise of a “brotherly reconciliation” and under the pretext of “bridge-building.” This warning came in the form of a large and thoroughly documented tome entitled, The Plot Against the Church, penned by several authors under the pseudonym Maurice Pinay. One of the actual authors was Fr. Saenz y Arriaga, later the subject of a questionable excommunication following his exposure of the public wearing of the Jewish Ephod of Caiaphas by Paul VI—an emblem replete with Masonic as well as rabbinical symbolism.
It should also be emphasized that the architect of the New Mass, Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, has been well exposed as a secret Freemason. A raid of an Italian Lodge in 1976 revealed a roster of high-ranking Vatican prelates, their dates of initiation into Freemasonry, and even their code-names. Bugnini entered the Brotherhood on April 23, 1963. His code-name was Buan. 2
Several Popes had condemned Freemasonry, beginning with Clement XII in 1738, and for good reason. The conspiratorial intent of Freemasonry was not only indicated by its grisly oaths of blind obedience to superiors under pain of assassination—carried out in the famous William Morgan case 3—but also in the upper degrees such as the Judaic Kadosh 4 degree, wherein a mock crown and mock papal tiara are stabbed in an unmistakable symbolic attack against Church and State (this degree is the 30th in the worldwide Scottish Rite today). 5 In addition, the common Royal Arch Degree, considered a completion of the Third or Master Mason Degree, contains an invocation “for the good of Masonry, generally, but the Jewish nation in particular.” 6 Hence Freemasonry as an institution is clearly pledged to fight against the Church and the well-ordered State, and to serve the interests of Judaism as embodied in the Talmud. For these grave reasons several Popes recognized the threat posed by this subversive secret society and censured it in the strongest possible terms. 7
Nevertheless, Masons bored from within, in accordance with their own plans which had been exposed by Monsignor Dillon in 1884 and published by Pope Leo XIII one year later at his own expense—after the Pope had himself written Humanum Genus, the most expansive papal condemnation of Freemasonry ever penned.8 One of the ensuing Masonic triumphs against the Church was clearly the wreckage of the liturgy, led by one of their own members, as we have seen. The hallmarks of treachery are apparent to those with eyes to see and a sensus Catholicus and need no recapitulation here. But this background of anti-Christian subversion and intrigue needs to be stressed to understand the truly blasphemous substitution of the Offertory with a nearly verbatim passage from the masters to whom the Masonic institution is pledged in service as evidenced in the Royal Arch Degree referenced above.
A modern myth is that this “Jewish table blessing” has its roots in worship from the time of Ezra. Searching the Bible should reveal that this story is absent from the pages of Holy Writ. Where, then, does it originate? The Jewish Encyclopedia 9 (published 1901-1906, consisting of twelve volumes) tells us, in its article on Benedictions, that this story of the origin of “blessings” in Judaism is a “rabbinical tradition” in the Talmud itself—in Berakoth 33a, as indeed it is. As a source of history, however, the Talmud should as a rule be rejected—just as one should reject the Talmudic stories that the Blessed Virgin Mary was a “harlot” (Sanhedrin l06a), that Adam had sexual intercourse with all the animals in the Garden of Eden (Yebamoth 63a), that Jesus “learned witchcraft in Egypt” (Shabbos l04b), or that Jesus is in Hell being boiled in “hot excrement” (Gittin 57a). One must emphasize that these passages and many others, long denied by Rabbis, have been included in the most recent and authoritative translation of the Talmud—several volumes of which are still in production—rendered by the noted Talmudic scholar Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz. Rabbi Steinsaltz comments on prior truncated and censored versions of the Talmud: “Wherever the Talmud makes derogatory reference to Jesus or to Christianity in general, the comment was completely erased, and the name of Christ was systematically removed…” 10
In The Essential Talmud, Rabbi Steinsaltz writes of the supreme importance of the Babylonian Talmud: “Babylonian scholars were soon attracted to the new center and thousands of disciples flocked to study there.”11 What Christ condemned as “the traditions of the elders” (Mark 7:1-13), Rabbi Steinsaltz calls the “oral law,” stating that “the work of preserving and codifying the vast body of oral law went on for several generations…” 12 This oral law was eventually written down as the Talmud, the most important and authoritative version being the lengthy Babylonian Talmud. Rabbi Steinsaltz traces the gradual development and redaction of the Babylonian Talmud, commenting that “the natural authorities best equipped to clarify problems were the heads of the great Babylonian academies of Sura and Pumbedita.” Their authority was unquestioned, and consequently the Talmud assumed the greatest possible importance, eclipsing the Old Testament as the central text of Judaism: “Historically speaking,” writes Rabbi Steinsaltz, “the Talmud is the central pillar of Jewish culture” 13—note: the Talmud, not the Old Testament. From the redacted Talmudic oral traditions, which Christ denounced as a special mark of the Pharisees and Scribes, came what we know today to be Judaism. And it is from this false religion, premised on the rejection of Jesus, that the replacement of the Offertory in the Mass was culled.
Some might respond that Judaism is not a different religion, but merely an earlier “phase” of the covenant now called Christianity, 14 with prayers which after all are directed to the same God. In response to this completely false characterization—confusing as it does the faith of the Israelites with the corruptions of the Pharisees, already well-entrenched in the time of Christ—I will quote a Doctor of the Church universally neglected today. St. John Chrysostom responds incisively: “But at any rate the Jews say that they, too, adore God. God forbid that I say that. No Jew adores God! Who says so? The Son of God says so. For He said, ‘If you were to know My Father, you would also know Me. But you neither know Me nor do you know My Father.’ Could I produce a witness more trustworthy than the Son of God?” 15
The true origin of the so-called “Jewish table blessing” is by all evidence the Talmud itself, since absent any other testimony one cannot attribute an authentic Old Testament origin to the practices of those who freely invented so many objectionable traditions that Christ Himself condemned them on several occasions (Mark 7:1-13; Matthew 15:1-9; Matthew 23:25-26). Hence in the Jewish Encyclopedia explanation of “Benedictions,” we find that “in the course of time all these benedictions assumed a stereotyped form; and the rule is given by Rab that, to be regarded as a regular benediction (Ber. 40b), every benediction must contain the name of God, and by R. Johanan that it must contain the attribute of God's kingship.” In other words, the Talmud and its rabbinical authors dictated the form of the blessing in Judaism which we later find brazenly imported into the New Mass by Bugnini's committee.
By the time of Vatican II, of course, the voices crying out for “peace with Judaism” were strong. A new “appreciation” of Judaism was underway in the Church, culminating in the decree of Nostra Aetate that the Jews did not kill Jesus. 16 Flogged by the whip of the Holocaust, the Church was on the run and trying to prove its sympathy for synagogues. If only Paul VI, in reviewing this audacious “swap” in the Mass, had heeded the strong exhortation of St. John Chrysostom: “Since there are some who think of the synagogue as a holy place, I must say a few words to them. Why do you reverence that place? Must you not despise it, hold it in abomination, run away from it? They answer that the Law and the books of the prophets are kept there. What is this? Will any place where these books are be a holy place? By no means! This is the reason above all others why I hate the synagogue and abhor it. They have the prophets but do not believe them; they read the the sacred writings but reject their witness—and this is a mark of men guilty of the greatest outrage.” 17 But the advice of this Doctor of the Church was not only ignored, one could say it has been the target of a papal apology actually given within the Synagogue of Rome on April 13, 1986. 18
The source of the replacement for the Offertory is clarified in the Jewish Encyclopedia, which introduces a list of “benedictions prescribed in the Talmud and adopted in the liturgy; each of them beginning with the formula ‘Blessed art Thou, O Lord, Our God, King of the Universe!’” Although the liturgy of Judaism is intended in the above reference, ironically this Talmudic benediction became repeated almost verbatim in the New Mass, But of even greater irony is the fact that in this instance the Latin is closer in form to the Talmud than the English translation done by the ICEL: for the Latin reads, Benedictus es, Domine, Deus universi, which translated literally becomes Blessed are You, Lord, God of the universe, whereas the common translation one encounters is Blessed are You, Lord God of all creation. The difference is small, but the Latin more explicitly parallels the Talmud, Tragically, those who hope for a “purification” of the New Mass by rendering it in Latin would only render the blasphemous parallel between the Offertory's replacement and the Talmud more exact.
As One reads the Talmud and the Jewish Encyclopedia, it becomes apparent that this formula extends to all benedictions, not merely to table blessings. By the 2nd Century, states the Jewish Encyclopedia, “they were already fixed as to form and number, since R. Meïr declares it to be the duty of everyone to say one hundred benedictions daily…” These “benedictions” include reciting a “blessing” after vacating one's bowels (“who has formed man in wisdom and created many orifices…”), thanking God for not making one a Gentile, and thanking God “who hast not made me a woman.”
The basic structure of benedictions was eventually crystallized into eighteen. Rabbi Steinsaltz comments, “The Great Assembly …decided to compose a standard prayer reflecting the wishes and aspirations of the entire people. It was composed of eighteen benedictions, each dealing in brief with one subject. This prayer, most of which has survived to the present-day and still constitutes the basis of the synagogue service, consists of three opening benedictions, three closing benedictions, and twelve intermediate ones containing various requests and supplications.” 19 Of particular note, however, is the fact that the daily “blessings” of Judaism contain a curse against Christians. As Professor Israel Shahak of Hebrew University tells us, “in the most important section of the weekday prayer—the ‘eighteen blessings’—there is a special curse, originally directed against Christians, Jewish converts to Christianity and other Jewish heretics: ‘And may the apostates have no hope, and all the Christians perish instantly.’” 20 Rabbi Steinsaltz comments, “One of the alterations introduced into the service shortly after the destruction [of the Second Temple] was not, however, connected to the Temple itself but to the problem of the heretic, Gnostic and Christian sects …Matters reached such a pass that the Sanhedrin sages at Yavneh decided to add to the Shemoneh Esreh an additional benediction (which is in fact a curse) on heretics…” 21 One can see that the prayer-form in the New Mass was used not only for table and even bathroom “blessings” but also to introduce curses of Christians, as even hesitantly admitted by Rabbi Steinsaltz.
Such is the chill-inducing context of the source of the prayer which replaced the Offertory in the New Mass. Let us be frank: the context is nothing short of blasphemy and sacrilege, for the Talmud and its authors were filled with hatred and curses—verifiable today in the Steinsaltz Talmud—against Christ and Christians. 22 The fact that the version of the prayer present in the New Mass is not overtly blasphemous is no more defense of its inclusion than would be the liturgical importing of an innocent-sounding passage from Satanist Meister Crowley's Book of the Law 23 in the name of reaching out to the ”misguided" or “connecting with those who have a Seed of the Word however obscure.” Let us sweep aside such transparent hogwash and call a spade a spade, a blasphemy a blasphemy, and loudly and persistently demand of Rome the full restoration of what is ours by right: a Mass not born in treason and marked by sacrilege.
For the Council Fathers were duly warned—as was Paul VI. To quote from the book handed to each bishop at the Second Vatican Council, “The most infamous conspiracy is in progress against the Church. Her enemies are working to destroy the most holy traditions and thus to introduce dangerous and evil-intended reforms … They manifest a hypocritical zeal to modernize the Church and to adapt it to the present-day situation; but in reality they conceal the secret intention of opening the gates … to prepare the further destruction of Christianity. All this it is intended to put into effect at the coming Vatican Council. We have proofs of how everything is being planned in secret agreement…” 24 But today we do not need proof of treasonous planning, for we can see the results in the implementation of the post-conciliar reforms—including the reform of the liturgy. And nowhere is the hand of an enemy more clearly apparent than in the replacement of the Offertory with words which are a hallmark of a different religion, reproduced from the premier anti-Christian text in the broad history of human resistance to grace.
Craig Heimbichner is a convert and recognized expert on Freemasonry and the occult. A speaker and writer, he is available to discuss the dangers of the occult and its influence are today. He may be reached in care of Catholic Family News.
1. For this reason the Talmud was ordered burned by Innocent IV in Bulle Impia Judeorum Perfidia, and later again by several Popes.
2. The facts were related in a September 12, 1978 article in Osservatore Politico in Rome, Italy entitled La gran loggia vaticana. The author reportedly died after printing the list of prelates.
3. Captain William Morgan, a Royal Arch Freemason, published the Masonic rituals and secret oaths in 1827. He was kidnapped and murdered by fellow Masons, an event which led to the original third political party in the United States: the Anti-Mason Party.
4. Hebrew for “holy” or “consecrated.”
5. See Secret Societies Illustrated, published by Masonic publisher Ezra A. Cook Publications, Inc., p. 123.
6. Duncan's Masonic Ritual and Monitor, Malcolm C. Duncan, p. 249.
7. The excommunication of Freemasons was removed from the 1983 Code of Canon Law, although Cardinal Ratzinger subsequently clarified on November 26, 1983 that membership is a “grave sin” which excludes one from lawful reception of Holy Communion. One wonders, however, why the explicit canonical ban was removed. It is certainly true that many Catholics heard of this change and joined Masonic Lodges.
8. The reader is referred to the excellent summary of these documents by John Vennari, The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita: A Masonic Blueprint for the Subversion of the Catholic Church, (TAN Books and Publishers, Inc.) Available from Catholic Family News, $4.00US postpaid.
9. Available online at http://jewishencyclopedia.com/
10. Adin Steinsaltz, The Essential Talmud, p. 84.
11. Adin Steinsaltz, Ibid., p. 43.
12. Ibid., p. 41.
13. Ibid., p. 266.
14. The unbiblical and unCatholic premise of Cardinal Ratzinger's work, Many Religions—One Covenant: Israel, the Church and the World, Ignatius Press, 1999.
15. St. John Chrysostom, Discourse on Judaizing Christians, III (2).
16. The day this was decreed, St. Simon of Trent was removed from the Roman Calendar—the child Martyr who had been killed by Jews on Good Friday out of hatred of Christ.
17. St. John Chrysostom, op.cit., V (2).
18. John Paul II was directly confronted on this occasion with the burning of the Talmud by his predecessors. His response was to apologize for “the acts of discrimination, unjustified limitation of religious freedom …in regard to the Jews …by anyone,” and he added, “I repeat, by anyone.” See Luigi Accattoli, Man of the Millennium: John Paul II, pp. 139-40. If John Paul II included prior Popes in his apology, by clear implication he included St. John Chrysostom, who was famous for his fiery denunciation of Talmudic poison.
19. Adin Steinsaltz, op.cit., pp. 101-102.
20. Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, p. 63.
21. Adin Steinsaltz, op.cit., p. 105.
22. An excellent summary of these passages can be obtained in the concise reference work Judaism’s Strange Gods by Michael A. Hoffman II.
23. For example, would a neo-Catholic object to the phrase, “There is no bond that can unite the divided but love”? Innocent enough in itself, it is a quotation from the odious Masonic Book of the Law of Crowley, which, like the Talmud, contains blasphemy against Jesus and Mary. If one finds a quote from Crowley objectionable—as one should—the objection holds a fortiori against the Rabbis who lived closer to the time of Christ, and yet denigrated Him with even worse blasphemy in the Talmud.
24. Maurice Pinay, The Plot Against the Church, p. 15.
Archbishop Lefebvre speaks frankly about the Pope
“They ask me, what do you think of the Pope? Not much, it's a mystery, an improbable mystery. It's a great tragedy for the Church, because ultimately, who's with the Pope is with the Church, is with the unity of the Church... But there is also a question mark. When we say "How is it possible that the Pope, if he's truly Pope, successor of St. Peter, he must in consequence have the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, he must be protected by the Holy Spirit in what he does, because he's the Pope we have the promise of Our Lord that he will be protected in upholding the faith... Therefore someone who does these kinds of things is not Pope...This Pope is doing things that are so contrary to the faith, against the Church, so destructive to the faith of the Church, and the Church itself
“It's not possible that the Pope who is protected by the Holy Ghost, by the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, could do things like this. There we agree, it's not possible, it doesn't fit, this destruction of the Church, this destruction of the Social Reign of Christ the King, this destruction of the Catholic faith in every aspect, every catechism, every university, every religious order, the seminaries, everywhere you look it is the systematic destruction of the Church, which was aimed at by all of these reforms that the Vatican implemented…”
“This reasoning is worth, this reasoning, I don't know, I don't say that's what's going on and there are several scenarios, maybe this one has some merit, we'll know the truth later maybe, I don't know, I don't know. The way I see it, it's not clear yet, you understand, but one day if it came to light that it was true, and this is something that is far from impossible, here also, there are apparitions that say the same thing and these apparitions have been recognized by the See of Peter, Fatima, La Salette, that say that the devil will climb to the highest places in the Church, I don't know if by the "highest place in the Church" that means Secretary of State, and then stops there, or if it goes even farther, if it goes all the way to the Pope. I don't know maybe even to someone who says he's the Pope, I don't know, but you know this is something that isn't impossible and theologians have studied this problem, the theologians have studied this problem to see if it's something that can happen, if a Pope can perhaps be a heretic and as a result excommunicated from the Church and therefore all his acts become illegitimate and invalid. And if, just as a hypothesis, once again I just don't know, don't put words in my mouth, I don't know, but if at last it comes out that quietly that there are certain connections to Masonry, imagine that the Pope was registered in a Masonic lodge before his election, he would be excommunicated. Excommunicated... His election is invalid, he can't be Pope and we would have had for all this time... A Pope who wasn't Pope. This is possible. Once again I don't say this is what is really happening but what do you want in a situation like this, we're looking for a solution. We find ourselves with a problem that has almost no theological solution, theologically, I say theologically almost impossible to solve, so we search for a solution, fine!”
“The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome being occupied by antichrists, the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is being rapidly carried out even within His Mystical Body here below (…) This is what has brought down upon our heads persecution by the Rome of the antichrists.” (Letter to the future bishops, 29 August 1987)
“Rome has lost the Faith, my dear friends. Rome is in apostasy. These are not words in the air. It is the truth. Rome is in apostasy… They have left the Church… This is sure, sure, sure.” (Retreat Conference, September 4, 1987, Ecône)
“So we are [to be] excommunicated by Modernists, by people who have been condemned by previous popes. So what can that really do? We are condemned by men who are themselves condemned…” (Press conference, Ecône, June 15 1988)
“…these recent acts of the Pope and bishops, with protestants, Animists and Jews, are they not an active participation in non-catholic worship as explained by Canon Naz on Canon 1258§1? In which case I cannot see how it is possible to say that the pope is not suspect of heresy, and if he continues, he is a heretic, a public heretic. That is the teaching of the Church.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
“The Church which affirms such errors is both schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is therefore not Catholic.” (July 29, 1976, Reflections on the Suspension a divinis)
“To whatever extent pope, bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” (July 29, 1976, Reflections on the Suspension a divinis)
“To be publicly associated with this sanction which is inflicted upon the six Catholic Bishops, Defenders of the Faith in its integrity and wholeness, would be for us a mark of honor and a sign of orthodoxy before the faithful. They have indeed a strict right to know that the priests who serve them are not in communion with a counterfeit church, promoting evolution, pentecostalism and syncretism. In union with these faithful, we make ours the words of the Prophet: “Præparate corda vestra Domino et servite Illi soli: et liberabit vos de manibus inimicorum vestrorum. Convertimini ad Eum in toto corde vestro, et auferte deos alienos de medio vestri—Open your hearts to the Lord and serve Him only: and He will free you from the hands of your enemies. With all your heart return to Him, and take away from your midst any strange gods” (I Kings 7:3) (SSPX District Superiors, July 6, 1988)
“Now some priests (even some priests in the Society) say that we Catholics need not worry about what is happening in the Vatican; we have the true sacraments, the true Mass, the true doctrine, so why worry about whether the pope is heretic or an impostor or whatever; it is of no importance to us. But I think that is not true. If any man is important in the Church it is the pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
“If we think that this reformed liturgy is heretical and invalid, whether because of modifications made in the matter and form or because of the reformers’ intention inscribed in the new rite in opposition to the intention of the Catholic Church, evidently we cannot participate in these reformed rites because we should be taking part in a sacrilegious act. This opinion is founded on serious reasons…” (Ecône, February 24, 1977, Answers to Various Burning Questions)
“Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, invalidity of election are so many reasons why a pope might in fact never have been pope or might no longer be one. In this, obviously very exceptional case, the Church would be in a situation similar to that which prevails after the death of a Pontiff.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
“It seems inconceivable that a successor of Peter could fail in some way to transmit the Truth which he must transmit, for he cannot – without as it were disappearing from the papal line – not transmit what the popes have always transmitted.” (Homily, Ecône, September 18, 1977)
“If it happened that the pope was no longer the servant of the truth, he would no longer be pope.” (Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976, before a crowd of some 12,000)
“While we are certain that the faith the Church has taught for 20 centuries cannot contain error, we are much further from absolute certitude that the pope is truly pope.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
“It is impossible for Rome to remain indefinitely outside Tradition. It’s impossible… For the moment they are in rupture with their predecessors. This is impossible. They are no longer in the Catholic Church.” (Retreat Conference, September 4, 1987, Ecône)
“…a grave problem confronts the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of Paul VI’s pontificate: how can a pope who is truly successor of Peter, to whom the assistance of the Holy Ghost has been promised, preside over the most radical and far-reaching destruction of the Church ever known, in so short a time, beyond what any heresiarch has ever achieved? This question must one day be answered…” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
“We believe we can affirm, purely by internal and external criticism of Vatican II, i.e. by analysing the texts and studying the Council’s ins and outs, that by turning its back on tradition and breaking with the Church of the past, it is a schismatic council.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
“We consider as null…all the post-conciliar reforms, and all the acts of Rome accomplished in this impiety.” (Joint Declaration with Bishop de Castro Mayer following Assisi, December 2, 1986)
“John Paul II now continually diffuses the principles of a false religion, which has for its result a general apostasy.” (Preface to Giulio Tam’s Osservatore Romano 1990, contributed by the Archbishop just three weeks before his death)
“This Council represents, in our view and in the view of the Roman authorities, a new Church which they call the Conciliar Church.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
“To be publicly associated with the sanction [of excommunication] would be a mark of honour and a sign of orthodoxy before the faithful, who have a strict right to know that the priests they approach are not in communion with a counterfeit Church…” (Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin, July 6, 1988, signed by 24 SSPX superiors, doubtless with Archbishop Lefebvre’s approval)
“This union which liberal Catholics want between the Church and the Revolution is an adulterous union – adulterous. This adulterous union can only beget bastards. Where are these bastards? They are [the new] rites. The [new] rite of Mass is a bastard rite. The sacraments are bastard sacraments. We no longer know whether they are sacraments that give grace. We no longer know if this Mass gives us the Body and the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. (…) The priests emerging from the seminaries are bastard priests.” (Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976, before a crowd of some 12,000.)
“The radical and extensive changes made in the Roman Rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and their resemblance to the modifications made by Luther oblige Catholics who remain loyal to their faith to question the validity of this new rite. Who better than the Reverend Father Guérard des Lauriers to make an informed contribution to resolving this problem…?” (Foreword contributed to a book in favour of the thesis of invalidity by Fr Guérard des Lauriers. Écône, February 2, 1977)
“…these recent acts of the Pope and bishops, with protestants, Animists and Jews, are they not an active participation in non-catholic worship as explained by Canon Naz on Canon 1258§1? In which case I cannot see how it is possible to say that the pope is not suspect of heresy, and if he continues, he is a heretic, a public heretic. That is the teaching of the Church.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
Marcel Lefebvre: Sedevacantist
by Rev. Anthony Cekada
Abp. Lefebvre made many statements favoring sedevacantism, but SSPX and Salza/Siscoe cover this up in their anti-sede screed, True or False Pope. Fr. Cekada provides a selection of the archbishop's own words on the topic, and sets them in their historical context.
“As regular readers of [Call Me Jorge] know, Francis is into all things Judaic, especially Chasidism. Their doctrines creep out here and there in Francis’ sermons and documents. One of the things which Francis does with regularity is to invert the teachings of the Church. An example of this is the use of the term ‘pharisee’ which he applies to his enemies, who are not open to Talmudic Judaism and Francis’ anti-Catholic machinations. Another example is his favorite blasphemous painting, White Crucifixion. Francis shows his hand, when he inverts Catholic doctrine, as a modernist change agent who is simply following the dictates of ‘The Rebbe’ to be, “modern on the outside and Chabad on the inside.” One of the most blatant examples is Francis teaching the Talmudic formula: Yeridah Tzorech Aliyah (“decent for sake of ascent”). This teaching simply means that one has to descend into sin, which paradoxically has a positive status in Hasidism, in order to ascend to new heights. This is done because the god of Talmudic Judaism is one of opposites — a hermaphrodite god of good/evil. In the Hasidic lore, tzaddiks (saints or righteous people) wrestle not with evil but with goodness as they descend into sin in this process in order to ascend into righteousness. Yeridah Tzorech Aliyah is one of the foundational beliefs of Orthodox Talmudic Judaism along with Tikun Olam. In the later belief the rabbis have the chutzpah to state that God made creation imperfect and the Talmudic Jews are to correct his work.
“The Hasidism of Francis’ mind is also shown when he says such things as, “[Jesus] made himself the devil” and “the Holy Trinity [is] arguing behind closed doors but on the outside they give the picture of unity.” Who else sees Jesus as a devil or God as a bunch of arguing rabbis other than a Talmudist? Whether he his parroting the ideas of Heschel, Levinas, Buber, Wiesel, a dead rebbe from the Steppes, or having over rabbis as guests who often gift him with books (Gluck & Steinsaltz) there’s an excellent chance it’s comes from the Baal Shem Tov and his cult in one manner or another.
“In the video clip below the late Chabad Lubavitcher rabbi, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, explains why Hasids should descend (into sin) in order to ascend — they are hunters getting ready to kill their prey. Another late Chasidic rabbi, Abraham Heschel (of Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate), in a 1965 interview with Ma'ariv explained exactly whom the prey were, “There are those who would like to attack [Christians] bodies. I want to attack their souls.” The elevation which takes place is one which will incorporate the prey’s soul into the of cult Talmudic Judaism and worship of their demonic hermaphrodite god. It’s a total inversion of Catholicism, the religion instituted by Jesus the Christ. So why is Francis teaching it?”
the Rebbe explains the Hasidic stratagem of “descent for sake of ascent”
talmudic zingers from the anti-Pope
“…the memory of him [Jesus] who has made himself sin, who has made himself the devil, the serpent, for us; he has humbled himself to the point of complete annihilation.”
“Inside the Holy Trinity they’re all arguing behind closed doors but on the outside they give the picture of unity.”
March 17, 2017
“…a priest that over weeks gives antisemitic talks until Jesus, on the cross, looks at the Virgin, who was at his side, and says to her,
'Mom, let's go since they don't like us;”
January 17, 2014
St. Ignatius Loyola’s advice:
”Do nothing, say nothing before considering if
that which you are about to say or do is
pleasing to God, profitable to yourself,
and edifying to your neighbor.”
The Novus Ordo’s Offertory was lifted from the same Torah that blasphemes the Holy Family:
My thanks go to StMaur1066 for this title: https://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2019/01/26/baseline-quote-of-the-entire-upcoming-bloodbath/#comment-287223
I was recently asked to elaborate on Vatican II heresy, its prime movers, its objectives, and its vulnerabilities.
“Oh that! (laughing),” I responded.
The historical background section here provides a timeline, the movers, and their machinations in broad strokes. Nothing in today's Church can be understood without that background.
Though I am a sinner and without the charism of infallibility, this is my sincere and honest effort to address those questions.
What is their objective? Most fundamentally, The Objective of the Prime Movers against God and His Church is to dispossess mankind of Heaven.
Fleshing that out (pun intended)…
The pride of Satan and his minions drove their rebellion against God's plan for mankind. When driven from Heaven, Satan and his minions could not bear knowing that we lesser (in body and intellect) beings could gain the Beatific Vision denied eternally to them, that every man and woman can face the Holy Trinity while sitting in the heavenly thrones from which the fallen angels were evicted. So galled, they have spent all of history from the Garden to today doing their worst to dispossess us lesser beings of the heights from which they fell. Led by Lucifer, they war incessantly against God—until The Last Day.
Every man chooses God or not, a true binary choice. As is often stipulated by the most militant atheists, some men explicitly choose themselves, a willful choice against God. Other men willfully and explicitly choose to join God’s enemies; they are not atheists. They believe in God, but knowingly choose against Him. Throughout history many men have organized against God, joined in association to fight Him, doing their worst to overturn God’s order and install themselves in His place. The organized spiritual opposition to God is led by Lucifer; the organized earthly opposition to God is led by the Synagogue of Satan. The Synagogue is aided by Freemasonry, Protestantism, and—horrifying to say—the Novus Ordo, a simulacrum of the Church, impostors who have installed a man-centered, heretical, and perverse cult in defiance of Go’'s Law under the guise of “Catholic” signage.
The usual suspects have already recoiled on reading the paragraph above, but I will make the case here (briefly). The Synagogue boasts about “defeating,” “confusing,” and “commanding” God. The totality of talmudic Judaism is war against God and the supremacy of the Judaic male. Proof texts abound here. In warring against God, Judaism has no common ethic with Christians as T.L. Davis attempted last week to argue here in defense of his use of the oxymoron “Judeo-Christian.”
An important disclaimer: Just as an overwhelming majority of today’s Catholics do NOT know Catholic Faith and Morals, I freely stipulate that many Jews do NOT know their own religion. “I was never taught that”—just as “blue Masons” (the lowest three degrees off Freemasonry) are not taught that Freemasonry worships Satan and assists the Synagogue unless and until their hierarchy deems the individual blue Mason useful and ready to conform, integrate, and execute the fundamentals. The ignorance of Catholics about Faith and Morals does not change Faith and Morals. The ignorance of Jews about Judaism does not change the long-established and published fundamentals of Judaism. The ignorance of “blue Masons” does not change Freemasonry’s worship of and service to Satan. end disclaimer
A similar case is made against the six century trajectory of Protestantism further and further from Jesus Christ's teaching conveyed through the inspired inerrant written and oral word (the oral teachings were shortly committed to writing) of His Apostles, Disciples, and Early Fathers. The most basic evidence of Protestant perversion of the Word of God was Protestant censorship of the Word of God as it had been accepted for 1500 years. Indeed, corruption within the Church was rampant, but “reformation” immediately became deformation and men of fallen nature (Original Sin) fell ever further. Witness as evidence, too, Protestantism’s service to the Synagogue of Satan’s genocidal project in the Holy Land.
There is, of course, Catholic culpability. I do not deny that some Catholics have committed heinous sins (and that many sins have been exaggerated and fabricated by our enemies). Bottom line: The Church is perfect. Churchmen (and laity) are fallen.
As to the “Vatican 2” heresies—
The one-and-only Vatican Council was called by Pope Pius IX in 1864 A.D., two days before publication of his Syllabus of Errors, a compilation of modernist errors (heresies) that have become even more prevalent in our times. By September 1870 AD the Freemasonic Army had taken Rome and made the Pope prisoner. Amidst the chaos, the Vatican Council was adjourned. The ongoing war prevented the Council from reconvening in Belgium as had been planned. Though documents were promulgated from the Council, the Vatican Council was never closed.
As argued on this page and by many more learned men than I, the council called “Vatican 2” was called by an anti-Pope, hence it is not a Council of the Church and its documents bear no mark of infallibility and demand no submission from any Catholic.
“Vatican 2” did promulgate documents with studied ambiguities and outright heresies, most notably ecumenism, separation of Church and State, collegiality, and universal salvation. Each of these heresies warrant volumes of discussion, but I believe this is a reasonably accurate and terse summary: http://catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/Privatican.htm
Following the close of “Vatican 2,” the Occupiers proclaimed their Novus Ordo (Latin for "New Order," sound familiar?) and promulgated changes in the Sacraments. The changes incorporated talmudic elements verbatim into their “Mass.” Ambiguities about the sacrificial and propitiatory nature of the Mass Protestantized their “Mass.” Day by day more talmudic and secular blasphemies are introduced into the Novus Ordo. Most recently the current anti-Pope performed a Birkat Kohanim talmudic ritual in the Vatican, a ritual that subverts Catholic dogma on the Holy Trinity: https://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com/2019/01/francis-performs-birkat-kohanim.html
Anti-Pope Bergoglio ignored the infallible, perennial, and unchangeable proclamation of Cantate Domino §712, that such talmudic rites “cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation.”
The changes crippled and, some argue, invalidated the Novus Ordo “sacraments,” resulting in a loss of Grace and consequently rampant sin and chaos in the world.
The most organized opposition to Satan and his synagogue has been crippled since the enemy has occupied the Church.
Catholics are to blame for this wicked state of affairs. Our tepidity and “itching ears” (2 Timothy 4:3) made too many of us beguiled, falling for false obedience to false teachers, “lukewarm” and “vomited out” (Apocalypse 3:16) for failing in our Galatians 2:11 duty to resist the monsters “to the face.”
What are the vulnerabilities of “Vatican 2.” Plain and simply, the absence of Truth is its vulnerability.
Authentic Catholicism can be traced directly to Jesus Christ through His Apostles without any discontinuity. The “Vatican 2” cult can be traced only to men, hence, like everything man-made, the Vatican 2 is crumbling, fracturing like man-made Protestantism has fractured into over 32,000 cults with mutually-conflicting dogmas, every idiot his own pope.
Because it too is man-made, talmudic Judaism is fractured into numerous cults (Lubavitch/Chabad, Satmar, Breslov, Skver, Reform, Conservative, etc.). Because the Novus Ordo gutted the sacraments of Grace, the collapse of Novus Ordo is accelerated by its abject lack of Grace.
The resultant decrease in the presence of God on His Altars and in His People is causally related to the manifest and diabolical blood lust and “syphilization” of what was once Civilization, Christendom.
The battle that we fight for God is infinitely (I use the word advisedly) more difficult directly due to the decrease of His Grace in this world. The battle can only be won by God, with God and on God's terms. Man’s efforts to re-make God in our image have failed and will always fail.
The authentic Church, now in the catacombs (in actuality an “underground” Church in China, and metaphorically “in the catacombs” elsewhere), has lasted millennia because she was founded by God and supported by His Graces and Gifts.
While the numbers of God's Faithful have diminished and He promised us enormous, even bloody, trials, He has promised that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against us. Even though we know that at The End of the World Satan will lose, be bound in Hell, and he and his minions, men and angels, will burn forever, each of us works out our personal salvation in fear and trembling lest we too burn with them.
“Jorge Mario Bergoglio was ordained a bishop on June 27, 1992, by
Thus, Cardinal Bergoglio is a direct episcopal ‘descendant’ and ‘heir’ of the Rampolla legacy.”
“Team Bergoglio” and the legacy of Cardinal Mariano Rampolla del Tindaro
If you are not familiar with the treachery of Cdl. Rampolla, click here.
by Cdl. Henry Edward Manning, D.D.