Athanasius and the Church of Our Time

by Bishop Dr Rudolf Graber. Translated from the German

on the 1600th anniversary of his death

FOREWORD

THE 1600 DAY OF THE DEATH of St. Athanasius should not pass by without at least a mention of him in one of the writings. He is one of the few saints to whom history has given the nickname “the Great”. Instead of many words, we quote here what Johann Adam Möhler in his book “Athanasius the Great and the Church in His Time”, especially in the struggle with Arianism ( Mainz 1844) writes about him in the preface: “As soon as I made my first acquaintance with church history, Athanasius appeared to meof such great importance, its fates so extraordinary, its oppression for the sake of faith, its revival, its renewed fall and renewed rise, the high Christian dignity, the exaltation over every misfortune that shines out to us from its history, took my participation so much to claim that a deep longing arose in me to get to know the great man better and to study him in his own writings. The dark feeling that attracted me to these was not deceived: a rich source of spiritual nourishment flowed to me from them. But the more I compared what I found in Athanasius himself with what I found about him in other books, the more it pained me that this great church father was not so well known and recognized in wide circles for a long time. than he deserves it so much. This made me decide to work on it, to bring to light the treasures of Christian wisdom and knowledge hidden in it and to describe its entire history. “

In line with the title of this work, the title was chosen: “Athanasius and the Church of Our Time” (in the struggle with modernism).

May this humble writing help to fulfill the words which Basil the Great addressed to Athanasius in 371: “In everything the Lord works great through those who are worthy of him. We therefore hope that such a great service will be befitting you, as a result of which the confusion of the people will end, that all will submit to one another in love and that the old strength of the Church will be renewed. “

Regensburg, am Feste des hl. Athanasius -2. May 1973

+ Rudolf Graber Bishop of Regensburg

INTRODUCTION

As if the powers of the deep and the powers in the heights were destroying the church from the face of the earth. But one stood there like a rock, a breakwater, Athanasius; One jumped into the breach everywhere, Athanasius; one swung God’s sword over east and west, Athanasius “(2).

How much this great confessor moved the minds in stormy times is shown – to name just one example – the church political pamphlet of the great Görre “Athanasius” (3), which this after the arrest of the Archbishop of Cologne Klemens August Freiherr von Droste-Vischering, which was “the hour of birth of a Catholic German people” (4), published in 1838. Franz Schnabel says of this writing: “The effect of the pamphlet was overwhelming. Here spoke a brilliant and experienced journalist who knew how to put the words, how to produce the evidence and how to grasp the educated reader, so that from there the effect spread to the people. After just a few weeks, seven thousand copies were out of print “(5). The government issued a ban, but had to refrain from this project. because the resistance that was sparked was too strong. In the preface to the second edition, Görres takes a sharp stand against those who demand a “German Concilium”: “Then the good time will come and the old one will be abolished. Anyone who has had a crazy idea for fifty years, who has not found a buyer, has recently brought it to market here; for now or never “(6). This Concilium would have to be “an ecumenical one.” (7)

As preconditions for the admission of the Protestants, Görres ironically demands “that they have critically destroyed at least one chapter of the Bible; those that naturally explain at least one miracle of the Bible and therefore do it are capable of; those who have succeeded in finding and interpreting a new Jewish or Christian myth; all who have any foundation of the doctrine, then the holy synod would not fail to proceed immediately to order and establish the doctrine. A new creed would have to be designed as the foundation and foundation of the whole, of the kind that all reasonable people are allowed to profess it. In view of the advances that science has made in recent times, it cannot be difficult to bring about such a work, all the more so since some good preparatory work is already available from some quarters “(9). Görres himself then tries this Formulation of such a new creed, targeting contemporary Hegelian philosophy and making it ridiculous. 

It goes beyond the scope of our introduction to go into the content of “Athanasius” in detail. Nevertheless, we cannot fail to quote a few things and leave it to the reader to discover something related to our time. Görres’ description of the lying zeitgeist is captivating : “It has come to the point where we find ourselves surrounded and surrounded by lies, as if by an atmosphere; it is breathed in and breathed out … So it happened that we are in the most important things in a fictional world walking around; in an artificial fabulous realm that we ourselves have fantasized about according to our narrow-minded views, our preconceived opinions, our shallow thoughts and poor passions; so far removed from the reality of things,that they do not even recognize each other in the bad aftermath “(10).

Görres, however, does not deal with the Cologne event alone, but goes far back in the prehistory. The removal of the old head of the empire, the emperor, should have been followed by that of the pope. But because this did not succeed, “at least for the time being … the members should separate themselves from him … As it was now court lawyers and territorial diplomats who threaded and carried out the first work, so it was court canonists and metropolitan theologians who did the other Businesses underwent themselves and Catholic priests came and sat in council everywhere during the drafting, and diligently lent a hand in the execution “(11).

So much for the “Athanasius” of the great Görres, whose 125th anniversary of death we are celebrating this year. In our century we meet the Alexandrian again in the novel by the Silesian Cosmus Flam (actually Dr. Josef Pietsch) who was wounded and lost during the siege of Breslau. , who published the work in 1930: “Athanasius comes to the big city or the animal pit” (12). In this utopian novel, which today has to be given the predicate prophetic (13), the poet describes the metropolis of part of Europe, “in which God, spirit, soul and nature have been radically switched off, where love of sex is degraded and the dictatorship of technology prevails “(14). In this city there is a small group of people who have heard of Christ and who call themselves Christian. Athanasius addressed the following words to these compromise Christians, among other things: “You want to be children of light, but you do not want to give up being children of the world. You should believe in repentance, but you believe in the happiness of the new age. You should speak of grace, but you prefer to speak of human progress. You should proclaim God, but you prefer to preach to man and mankind. You call yourselves after Christ, but you should rather name yourselves after Pilate … You are the great ruin. Because you etch in the middle. In the middle you want to sit hissing light and world. You are masters of compromise and go with the world. I tell you: rather go out into the world and leave the Master, whose kingdom is not of this world “(15). Aren’t these really prophetic words? From all that we have quoted from the works mentioned, our intention is clear. The intellectually powerful, intrepid Athanasius should also raise his voice today against what is going on in the church.

Shortly after the fateful June 30, 1934, when Hitler’s henchmen put down the alleged Röhmputsch and liquidated a number of people unpopular to the regime, such as Klausener, Gerlich, and Probst, a small but rousing booklet appeared in the Liga-Verlag in Lucerne: “ St. Ambrose and the German Bishops “. With imploring words the bishops were called upon to imitate the example of the Milanese bishop who, in 390, confronted the Emperor Theodosius and demanded repentance from him for lynching 2,000 people in the Thessalonica circus So – and this was the exhortation of that scripture – the bishops should solemnly protest against what happened on June 30, 1934. This example also shows

Before we turn to a pastoral letter of Athanasius, the situation of the church at the time of Athanasius must be touched upon in a few lines.

But let us leave St. Basilius speak, who writes in a letter from the year 371: “The heresy, which had long since been scattered by the enemy of truth, by Arius, shot up to insolent heights, and like a bitter root it sprouts perishable fruit and is already overpowering because the standard bearer the true doctrine in the individual parishes were driven out of the churches as a result of slander and offense and the authority in their administration was given to those who take captive the hearts of the simple “(16).

In a letter to Athanasius from the year 371/72 there are the telling words: “The whole Church is in dissolution” (17). Looking up at this column on the Nile gives the Bishop of Caesarea courage “from the depths of despair to hope better days “(18). Another letter, written in 372, is addressed to the bishops of Italy and Gaul to come to the rescue “before the churches are completely shipwrecked” (19), because “not only one church is endangered, not even two or three are difficult Storm affected. The evil of heresy rages almost from the borders of Illyria to Thebais. The notorious Arius first sowed the perishable seeds “(20). In the same year he speaks to thePriests of Tarsus that “the present time has a strong tendency to overthrow the Church”. (21) Exactly 1,600 years ago, in the year of the death of Athanasius, he raised the question in a letter to the Alexandrians: “Did he Lord has left his church completely? Is the last hour here, and with this the apostasy begins, so that now the man of sin, the son of perdition, the adversary, who rises above all that is called God and sanctuary, may be revealed “(22). These short quotations, which can of course be multiplied, give an idea of ​​what the church was like back then. What the Cappadocians now describe more generally, Athanasius enumerated in detail in a pastoral letter, who is unique about the grandiose force of the style and the unspeakable pain of his writer and who should provide the framework for our treatise. Here too, of course, the historical background must be briefly outlined. Once again an Arian synod, that of Antioch in 339, had deposed the “immortal” (Athanasius) bishop of Alexandria and sent Gregory the Cappadocian in his place.

“The news of the renewed deposition of Athanasius gave the signal for a storm in Alexandria. The imperial prefect Philagrius intervened with a hard hand. On the night of March 18, 340, Athanasius was expelled from the episcopal palace. The people surrounded the churches with threatening gestures. Athanasius wanted to prevent the worst, he quickly baptized the catechumens, then he fled, and Gregory rode into the city under the protection of a warband. The Jews, Gentiles, and Arians cheered the hireling. A dull murmur and a cry of desperation went through the congregation of believers when Gregory took possession of their churches amid appalling horrors. It was Good Friday. The expelled father heard in his hiding place by the city, how the death scream of those killed by Gregor drowned out the Easter alleluia. Messengers came and told him in breathless horror that hundreds had been dragged out of the churches into the dungeons, holy virgins had been stripped in the squares in front of the sanctuaries and beaten with clubs until they collapsed, and he saw the fire in the sky burned up Christian houses of worship. He can no longer hold out, he writes a letter to all of his bishops, lines full of tremendous pain and yet also a powerful urge to fight. Once a Levite’s wife was desecrated and murdered. Then the Levite in his pain dismembered the corpse and sent the pieces to all the tribes of Israel, so that all of them might see the crime as having happened to themselves and rise like one man for vengeance, and all the tribes should be set in motion, and holy war should be broken out. So did Athanasius begin. And he goes on: “The misfortune of the Levite is nothing compared to what has now been dared against the Church”, and he invokes her in love for the Savior: “Do not overlook such iniquities, do not allow the famous The church of the Alexandrines will be trampled underfoot by the heretics – so that the faith of the church and the laws will not perish in a short time “(23).

This introduction, which is based on a gruesome event from the Book of Judges (24), is taken literally and, in the spirit of Athanasius, we try to describe what has broken through the twelve tribes of the new Israel so that they can muster up to fight resolutely against the threatening “dissolution of the Church” of which Basil spoke or against “self-destruction”, as Pope Paul VI. called it (25).

CIRCULAR LETTER FROM ST ATHANASIUS TO ALL BISHOPS, DATED 340

Athanasius sends greetings (joy) in the Lord to the fellow-bishops as a whole, the beloved gentlemen.

What we have suffered is terrible and almost unbearable; it is not possible to report on it accordingly. In order to make the horror of the events known more quickly, I thought it would be good to recall an account of the Holy Scriptures. A Levite who had been deeply disgraced on his wife – she was a Hebrew woman from the tribe of Judah – must see the excess of the crime. Shaken by the crime that had been dared against him, he divided – as the Holy Scriptures in the Book of Judges tells (chapter 19) – the body of the slain woman and sent parts to the tribes of Israel. Not he alone, but everyone should endure such a serious crime. If they suffered from it with him, everyone should avenge it too. But if they didn’t want to see any of it, so they should all be disgraced as if they themselves were the evildoers. The messengers now reported the incident. But those who heard and saw it declared: This had never happened since the days when the sons of Israel came up out of Egypt. All the tribes of Israel became agitated, and as if they had suffered it themselves, they all rallied against the wrongdoers. The criminals were defeated in war and they were all disgusting. Because the assembled multitudes did not pay attention to the tribal affiliation, but only looked with contempt at the crime. All the tribes of Israel became agitated, and as if they had suffered it themselves, they all rallied against the wrongdoers. The criminals were defeated in war and they were all disgusting. Because the assembled multitudes did not pay attention to the tribal affiliation, but only looked with contempt at the crime. All the tribes of Israel became agitated, and as if they had suffered it themselves, they all rallied against the wrongdoers. The criminals were defeated in war and were horrific to all. Because the assembled multitudes did not pay attention to the tribal affiliation, but only looked with contempt at the crime.

You, brothers, know the story and what the Scriptures clearly show with it. I do not want to elaborate on that, since I am writing to the know, and I now urge you to draw your attention to what has happened now, much worse than then. But that’s why I thought of this story so that you can compare the current events with those of that time and recognize how the present exceeds the cruelty of the past. But you may be more violent against the wrongdoers than it was then. Because the harshness of the persecution against us exceeds that too. The unhappiness of the Levite is small compared to what is assumed today in relation to the church. You haven’t heard anything worse than that in the whole world, no one has experienced greater suffering. Back then it was a single woman of the injustice, a single Levite who suffered violence. Today, however, the whole Church endures injustice, the priesthood has been reviled in high spirits, and – what is worse – the fear of God persecuted by ungodliness. At that time every tribe was terrified at the sight of part of a single woman. Today you can see the whole church cut into pieces. One sees the messengers who are sent to you and to others and report the arrogance and injustice they have suffered. Let yourselves be shaken, I swear you, not as if only we, but as if you too had been wronged. Everyone should help as if he were suffering from it himself. Otherwise the church order and faith of the church may shortly perish. Both are threatened if God does not quickly put the offenses back in order through you,

It is not only now that the church has received order and statutes. They were handed over safely and safely by the fathers. Faith did not just begin now either; it came upon us from the Lord through the disciples. Let it not be that what has been preserved in the churches from the beginning up to our time be given up in our day; may not what has been entrusted to us be embezzled by us. Brethren, as stewards of the mysteries of God, let yourselves be moved as you see how all that is stolen from others. You will hear more of the mail carriers; It urges me to show this briefly, so that you can really see that this has never happened against the churches since the day when the Lord exalted to heaven gave the disciples his commission with the words: “Go out;

CAUSES OF THE INTERNAL CRISIS

WHAT HAPPENED THEN, more than 1,600 years ago, is repeated today, only with a twofold or threefold difference: Alexandria is today the whole world church, which is shaken in its existence, and what happened then in terms of physical violence and cruelty is shifting to another level . Exile is replaced by silence and killing by character assassination. Our Holy Father characterized the intruder Gregory from that time on the bishopric of Alexandria as “Satan who penetrated through a crack into the temple of God”. (27) If we hold him responsible for the confusion in the church, that means no excuse for those people who give in to his tools or even believe that they can deny his existence, but only the biblical truth should be clearly and unambiguously expressed that there is a devil who is the father of lies (Jo 8:44) and the murderer from the beginning (ibid.) and who could claim to be of himself at the temptation of Jesus that power and glory be given to him over all the kingdoms of the world and that he give them to whomever he will (Lk 4, 5f). Even at that time it was recognized from whom the heresy originated, andBasil wrote in 373: “When the devil saw that the church was growing and flourishing during the persecution of the Gentiles, he changed his plan and no longer led the fight openly, but secretly prepared us to stalk and hide his cunning under the name they bear, so that we suffer what one day our fathers seem to suffer, but not for Christ’s sake, since the persecutors also bear the Christian name “(28). Does this word not exactly apply to our situation “The bloody persecutions seem to be over, things are being made more elegant and refined and devilish today. There actually is a Luciferian plan (29), which Pope Leo XIII implies when he says:”In such mad and sinister endeavors, it seems to a certain extent to reveal Satan’s ineradicable hatred and thirst for revenge against Jesus Christ” (30).

We have to pursue this plan, and with it we touch the question of the causes of today’s internal church crisis.

In his circular on modernism, Pope Pius X called it “the reservoir of all heresies” (“omnium haereseon conlectum”) (31). And indeed, when we look back on the Church of antiquity, we see those heresies of that time emerging in a new guise. Arius, who denied the equality of the Logos with the Father, is alive. He lives wherever people avoid the unequivocal confession that Christ is true God, and resort to the most varied of humanly beautiful names. But the core dogma of our belief is practically denied. Pelagius, who denied original sin and so exaggerated the power of human will that grace hardly plays a role anymore, is alive. It is strange how these false doctrines become virulent again. And the reason? It is the flight from the mystery into the self-power of man with his ratio, for which the Arian solution of the mystery of Christ is plausible because it is understandable; it is the proud insistence on the willpower of a person who can do everything he wants and does not have to let himself be fooled by gracious, supernatural currents of power. All of this is mixed up with a kind of gnosis that sought to integrate young Christianity into the world in one of its directions (32), that is, wanted to accomplish an aggiornamento even then. But let’s leave that. We are skipping a whole millennium and are now in the process of illuminating the Luciferian plan during the greatest intellectual upheaval in history, humanism and the Renaissance. This is where the secular process begins, which since then has determined the direction of history and the attitude to life. Here the “Copernican turn” takes place in the opposite sense. While man and history were previously oriented towards God, man is now the focus, thethen four centuries later the matter steps aside or even surpasses it. From now on man is the measure of all things. Do we have to cite evidence from the present here? The “God-is-dead-theology” is – no matter how you interpret it – but only the latest craze. And this trend does not stop at the most sacred. God is on his side and even dominates in the prayers the human being.

ENLIGHTENMENT

THE ENLIGHTENMENT is a further step towards the realization of the Luciferian plan. In the ceremony for Hans Lilje on his 65th birthday (on August 20, 1964) “Farewell to Christianity, 17 responses from publicists and theologians to a contemporary challenge”, there is a contribution by Hans Jürgen Baden entitled “The Second Enlightenment” ( 33). The evangelical author is of the opinion, like some of our contemporaries, that today we have entered a new period of enlightenment or that the typical symptoms of the enlightenment have returned around 250 years ago (34). That is also well known. But it is worth reading up in “Athanasius” des Görres how he describes the clergy in the last phase of the Enlightenment shortly before the French Revolution, and we ask ourselves

‘For it can neither be denied nor concealed that many members of this clergy were already in the penultimate times, before the upheavals of the last occurred, both en masse in many of its noblest institutions, and personally in many of its members, in ever increasing proportions surrendered to increasing slackness; which in the end already led to the fact that, as they went carelessly in and out of the cathedrals, the enthusiasm of the fathers built their faith, and in the pictures with which their artful hand adorned the interior of them, saw nothing more than old junk : so also had scarcely any idea of ​​the rich treasure, whose keeper and narrator, had become their profession. Next to the departing generation, which still tried to preserve the remains of old living tradition in the earlier seriousness and with the old severity, a new one arose, which, keeping it low, talked itself out of the seriousness turned to it as dark monkery, the severity as a useless self-plague, and both as from now on no longer up-to-date explanatory, looked for various agreements over time. Protestantism stood before one’s eyes as a shining example, which one only had to approach in order to rejuvenate the outdated in rapid transformation. It was decided to work, which, however, should initially be carried out in breeding and honoring, without prejudice to the essentials. 

The first approach was dogmatics. It dealt with much, the understanding of which was gradually lost in the increasing flatness of the times; it has now been declared absolutely incomprehensible and relegated as such from the realm of the only thing worth knowing. The mystery, which in its quiet glow requires a spiritual visionary gaze for its appreciation and knowledge, and in its depth a spiritual depth to absorb it thoroughly enough, found this look stupid, but the depth was filled with the wisdom of the world: its spiritual light turned pale hence in the brilliance of the physical; and since it was completely beyond the comprehension of the time, it was hardly tolerated and retained in its outward signs. 

The old doctrine had poured out its inner fullness into a multitude of such externalities, which, as it were, formed their preliminary works against the world: now, however, since the extremities also cooled down with the inner life in the core, these too were given up, and as superfluous where it was practical was eliminated. Thus, after the high castle in the middle had been cleared and the outer works had been abandoned, the teaching was limited to daily necessities and the region of commercial life, and in this simplifying limitation it was thoroughly secular. Breeding proceeded along the same lines. Here, too, the sense of the importance of asceticism was utterly deprived, and the conviction of its inevitable necessity for the clergyman had been utterly lost. The old discipline must therefore appear as an unforgivable harshness against nature, which therefore, like everything exaggerated, instead of reaching the goal, rather led away from it through the revolt of the mistreated. 

So everywhere people found themselves inclined to work towards the liberation of the oppressed; the sharply drawn bonds of discipline were therefore everywhere loosened and partly loosened; while at the same time the old wrinkled toga had to give way to the more comfortable chlamys even in the external service. All of this soon spread from the practice of the individual to that of the institutions; the rule of the order and the custom throughout all the branches of the class were softened everywhere, the lax observance was introduced everywhere in place of the strict ones, and the offspring were soon educated in it in the seminaries “(35).

SECRET SOCIETIES

During the Enlightenment, a number of anti-church associations emerged, of which only two should be mentioned, Freemasonry, founded in London in 1717, and the Order of Illuminati, founded on May 1, 1776 by the canon law professor Adam Weishaupt in Ingolstadt (36). With this we touch the problem of secret societies and their influence on society and the church. Again and again you can read that the French Revolution is due to Freemasonry. A new work, however, establishes the formula: “Freemasonry does not make the revolutions; it prepares it and it continues it “(37).

Be that as it may, in this and similar secret societies the seeds were laid for what was later called synarchy, ie a unified wide state with a unified government that is planned as an opposing church. But of that later. In any case, the French Revolution is an important link in the Luciferian plan. It is not too much to say that some Catholic areas are only now making their main ideas their own, freedom in rebellion against the ruling structures in the church, equality in democratization with the council system and fraternity in the horizontal humanity, where the vertical, God and transcendence in general, is excluded. How closely the 2nd Vatican Council is connected with the French Revolution is shown by statements made at the 11th Congress of the Communist Party of Italy in 1964, which we will come to later.

With this, however, we are already close to the immediate causes of the internal church crisis in the second half of the 20th century. It should be noted here that “the great revolutions – and we are involved in one – do not take place spontaneously; they have their forerunners, often only in secret, their prophets sow the seeds of the revolt around them, and ultimately the leaders and those who carry them out. They are preceded by a subterranean phase, followed by incubation (38) until the eruption occurs. With that we have already dealt with an objection that could be raised to us when we turn to certain secret societies and their spokesmen in the 19th century. It is true that many of these names are not even to be found in the dictionaries (39), but that does not change the fact

Pierre Virion deserves credit above all for drawing attention to these secret societies in his writings. If one reads only a fraction of what Virion has compiled from all the writings of the secret spokesmen, which have now largely disappeared, one is surprised, amazed and horrified that towards the end of the last century all the ideas emerged here that are now in the post-conciliar Time to put the church to the acid test. It should be noted, however, that all these destructive thoughts are secretly aimed at a unified goal, namely to create the opposing church or the “new” church by undermining and repurposing the old church, not so much through an attack from outside, but rather as they say today in the political arena, by the “march through the institutions”. We have already mentioned the French term for all these endeavors, namely synarchy.

It is the sum of secret powers of all the “orders” and schools that have come together, an invisible one To form world government. From a political point of view, the synarchy strives to integrate all social and financial powers that this world government under socialist leadership naturally has to support and promote. Catholicism, like all religions, would consequently be absorbed by a universal syncretism. It would by no means be suppressed, but integrated, whereby the principle of collegiality is already clearly aiming at this. Here you can see what subterranean consequences the coining of such new words has. Ultimately, the synarchy, fully realized, would mean the opposing church (40). Again we have to face the objection that such relationships are based purely externally on word equality and are factually far fetched. But let’s hear what Alphons Rosenberg says about it: “… All these (and other) groups exert influence on the course of church reform, albeit mostly in an invisible way. Most of their ideas, without being specifically named, are absorbed into the spiritual bloodstream of the Church by theologians and shepherds (!) Through evolution and careful screening … “(41). These words should be one of the strongest and clearest evidence for the infiltration methods targeted by the enemy side are assessed and the necessary consequences are drawn from them.

The synarchy plan was drawn up in the years 1880-1890. Without referring to the various groupings, such as To go into more detail, for example, on the cabalistic orders of the Rosicrucians, the Martinists and the Symbolists (42), it should only be mentioned that the Jesuit Riquet and d’Alec Mellor (43), who advocate a rapprochement between the Church and the Freemasons, narrow Maintain relationships with these groups (44). By the way, the founder of the first group, ex-priest Stanislas de Guaita (1861-1897) wrote a hymn of Satan (45).

The ex-canon Roca (1830-1893) deserves a special mention. He was born in Perpignan, France, where he attended the Carmelite School, was ordained a priest in 1858 and an honorary canon in 1869. He made trips to Spain, the United States of America, Switzerland and Italy. Well versed in the occult sciences, he developed extensive propaganda, especially among the youth. This brought him into conflict with Rome. Despite his excommunication, he continued his work, preaching the revolution, proclaiming the coming of the “divine synarchy” under a Pope converted to scientific Christianity. He speaks of a new enlightened Church, influenced by the socialism of Jesus and the apostles. According to Virion, Roca is “an apostate of the strongest kind”, and what he demands and predicts would be taken almost as prophetic (46).

In order to understand his language to some extent, you have to know that he has retained the most common Catholic terms, but has given them a different meaning (as it is today, by the way). He explains frankly: “My Christ is not that of the Vatican.” Or when he speaks of God, he means the person who is taking God’s place. For him the word reform means revolution: “Not reform, but. .. I dare not say it right, because the word is so disreputable … a revolution. ” “The new social order will (therefore) be laid outside Rome, in spite of and against Rome.” But now follows a statement that, as someone has said, shakes us to our core: “The new Church,

In the following we quote various sentences from the works of Roca which illuminate our present crisis. With regard to the future liturgy, he believes “that the divine cult, as regulated by the liturgy, the ceremonial, the ritual and the prescriptions of the Roman Church, will soon undergo a transformation at an ecumenical council (!) That will give it its venerable simplicity of the golden apostolic age will be given back in accordance with conscience and modern civilization “(47). Roca continues:” A sacrifice is being made which is a solemn atonement … The papacy will fall; it will die under the sacred knife that the fathers of the last council will forge. The papal Caesar is a host crowned for the sacrifice “(48).

It strikes us that there was already talk of a council at that time. The Rosicrucian Dr. Rudolf Steiner, the founder of the Anthroposophical Society, declared in 1910: “We need a council and a Pope who will proclaim it.” Wasn’t that what nourished the enthusiasm with which the world greeted the council? the dominant term is the word “new”. Roca proclaims a “new religion”, a “new dogma”, a “new ritual”, “a new priesthood “. He describes the new priests as “progressives”, he speaks of the “suppression” of the cassock and the marriage of the priests (49) and advances to the admission: “The religious, political and social redeemer is made by impersonal onesInstitutions (“institutions impersonelles”) rule over humanity. ” Following this word, one has rightly pointed out how this is shown everywhere today in the collegiality, in the vast amount of “conferences, commissions, committees and meetings” (50). One is almost tempted to say that the person has been pushed back Here the Luciferic plan comes to light: Nothing more about the person who receives their highest consecration through the Trinity and the God-Man, and who is now extinguished by the collective, no matter in what form.

An interim remark is necessary here. It would be a mistake to think that these are only the thoughts of a loner like Roca; no, all this is expressed by a whole series of kindred spirits in a multitude of writings which at least at that time were accessible to the whole world. And hence the question: Why did the Church not take notice of these things? Certainly Pius X did it. But that was all. In the book of Abbe Melinge (better known under his pseudonym Dr. Alta) “L’evangile de l’Esprit-Saint, Jean traduit et commente” (1907), the whole program is developed according to which “work” is done today:

“1. The appeal to esotericism;

2. the revolt against the structures of the Church;

3. The replacement (substitution) of the Roman papacy by a “pluri-denominational” pontificate, which is able to adapt to an all-round (polyvalent) ecumenism that we see established today in the intercelebration of priests and Protestant pastors.

4. the glorification of Christ by a new humanity;

5. the inversion of all truths taught by Christ “(51).

You can’t speak more clearly. Dr. Alta as a priest in the church and it was said of him: “Instead of fleeing from the church like Luther, he stayed to reform in the bosom of the church (temple) (52). Everything has already been there.

But back to Roca. From all the quotes that could be expanded into books, you can already see the tactics: to strip the church of its supernatural character, to amalgamate it with the world, to make the denominational coexistence into an ecumenical one and thus the world unity – Prepare religion in the unified world state. The predicate of the church “self-saving” has disappeared from the vocabulary of dialogue, as one Gnostic lecturer put it: “We are offering the church one more chance, it ranks among the other religions.” 

This of course includes the “Depretrise” (53) of the church, the de-priestification in favor of a lay church, and as a transitional form – again after Roca – the coexistence of celibate and married priests. Now the de-priestization of the church has already begun to an alarming extent. Needless to say, all the priests who walked in the tracks of Rocas (and Loisy’s) are mentioned. Virion asks the question: “How many priests may it have been who ostentatiously remained in the church, but only because they were able to secretly sow the virus of revolution there?” Roca, who tends to exaggerate, replies “a thousand”. 

But Saint-Yves said more moderately: “I know many, and even holy priests, who (out of ignorance) walked on the path to syncretistic Christianity” (54). “How many priests may it have been who ostentatiously stayed in the church, but only because they could secretly sow the virus of revolution there?” Roca, who tends to exaggerate, replies “a thousand”. But Saint-Yves said more moderately: “I know many, and even holy priests, who (out of ignorance) walked on the path to syncretistic Christianity” (54). “How many priests may it have been who ostentatiously stayed in the church, but only because they could secretly sow the virus of revolution there?” Roca, who tends to exaggerate, replies “a thousand”. But Saint-Yves said more moderately: “I know many, and even holy priests, who (out of ignorance) walked on the path to syncretistic Christianity” (54).

Another modern idea that was ubiquitous in these occult circles at the time was a kind of mysticism of democracy. A social Christ was already being preached at that time, and Roca writes: “I believe that this social redemption of the people in the new society. by the accession of democracy to the throne. “And even more sharply on July 26, 1891:” The u, pure Christianity is socialism (Le christianisme pur, c’est le socialisme) “. Therefore, the “convert of the Vatican” expected the canonical Urbi et Orbi declaration that contemporary civilization is the legitimate daughter of the holy gospel of social redemption ” (55).

The whole thing is rounded off by the significant work of the Freemason Yves Marsaudon “L’oecuménisme vu par un Franc-Maçon de Tradition” (56), which he has given an exuberant dedication to Pope John XXIII and that bridges the gap mentioned above What is particularly noteworthy here is the shift in the strategy that can be set around 1908 (57): “The goal is no longer the destruction of the church, but one seeks to use it by penetrates into them. ” With Pope John XXIII. if one believes to have made a start: “With all our hearts we wish the successful outcome of the revolution of John XXIII.” (. ~> 8). “One day the dogmatic church must disappear or assimilate and, in order to assimilate, return to the sources “(59). This is already evident today with the priests:” Today the priest is no longer this special being … on the contrary, he strives (progressively) to mix with modern society “( 60). In this amalgamation process, Freemasonry plays the greatest role: “We Freemasons of tradition allow ourselves to clarify and accentuate the word of a famous statesman (transposer) by adapting it to the circumstances: Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Muslims, Hinduists, Buddhists, Freethinkers and devout thinkers are only first names for us. Our family name is Freemasonry “(61). Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Muslims, Hinduists, Buddhists, free thinkers and devout thinkers are just first names for us. Our family name is Freemasonry “(61). Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Muslims, Hinduists, Buddhists, free thinkers and devout thinkers are just first names for us. Our family name is Freemasonry “(61).

At this point it becomes clear how close the real and the fake are to one another. What is more worth striving for than ecumenism in the observance of the word of Christ “so that they may all be one (Jn 17:21). But the boundary to syncretistic ecumenism, which relativizes the truth and ultimately steers it towards the super “church”, the great goal of the secret societies, is only very thin.

We are, however, far ahead. We have to take a closer look at another phenomenon of our day, sexual debauchery and disruption. In a secret instruction from 1819, which breathes a truly Luciferian spirit, there is the instruction: “Flatter all passions, the worst as well as the most generous …” (62). We read the words in a letter of August 9, 1839 : “We must not individualize the vice; in order for it to increase to the proportions of patriotism and hatred of the Church, we must generalize it. Catholicism is no more afraid of a sharp dagger than the monarchy, but these two foundations of the social order can collapse under corruption; in any case we never allow ourselves to be corrupted (corrompre). So let’s not make martyrs,the vice in the masses. Whatever you strive for with the five senses, that should find its satisfaction … Create hearts full of vices and you will no longer have Catholics. This is the corruption, by and large, that we have undertaken, the corruption of the people by the clergy, that of the clergy by us, the corruption that leads us to dig the grave of the Church “(63).

During this period a thought was expressed that is only now being fully realized. In order to achieve all of these goals that have been mentioned, “a new generation must be created worthy of the kingdom we dream of. Leave aside the old age and the mature age; goes to the youth and if possible to the children. Once your reputation has established itself in the colleges, grammar schools, universities and seminaries, once you have won the trust of professors and students, then make sure that those who are primarily involved in clerical service are happy come to your meetings. This good reputation will give you access to the doctrines in the bosom of the young clergy as well as in the interior of the monasteries.

PIUS X AND MODERNISM

LOOKING BACK AT this 19th century, it must be stated that the Church as a whole paid little attention to these events. The world was too preoccupied with the achievements of science and technology. Even today, after two world wars, one still dreams of eternal evolution and an earthly paradise. What about the church? It was the house that was well founded with strong weir towers. In the 1st Vatican Council, the rock of Peter was so cemented and shielded on all sides that no storm could shake it – so it was said. Only one person saw more deeply, it was Pope Pius X, whom we now have to deal with in more detail in his struggle against modernism, if only because Pope Paul VI. in his inaugural encyclical “Ecclesiam suam” (65) says,Freiherr von Hertling in the “Hochland” (67) headed “Roman Reform Thoughts”, where he explains in the introduction: “Among the papers of Bishop Ketteler von Mainz that were left behind was, as his biographer, P. Pfülf SJ, reports, a hastily sketched one Draft reform plan. Ketteler wanted to submit it to the German bishops and then, with their help, encourage it to be carried out in Rome. “The reform should extend to the whole hierarchy, from the election of the Pope and Roman customs down to the country deans and pastors” (68). In the further course of the article the author shows how the justified criticism and reform must be constituted and what they have to take into account: “Nagging criticism, shaking of trust in the good will of the leading personalities, Disparaging judgment of existing institutions, overzealous exposure of real or supposed damage are therefore far more dangerous in the ecclesiastical field than in the state. Not, of course, for the discerning person. He knows how to distinguish between ideal and reality, between what should be by law and what people’s weaknesses make of it again and again. He does not despair of the truth of the Christian doctrine of salvation, because he has to learn that it is occasionally distorted by superstitious exercises, dishonored by unworthy priests, and abused in disdainful profit-making sense. He knows how strong ties we all hold on to what has passed down from our ancestors, knows how difficult it is to get rid of what has become historical, after custom and habit seem to have given him a right of existence which fundamental judgment must deny him. But not everyone has this insight. In large circles it is completely absent. Then there is the fact that the life of the modern world often moves in paths that are alien to the supernatural Christian faith, if not directly hostile. That is why the half-wits, the wavering, the little believers tend to be affected without resistance by a sharp accusation against church personalities or a ruthless criticism within the church of existing and tolerated institutions here or there. The last loose connection that still bound her inwardly to the Church is broken. With regard to the whole of Catholic piety, they think they should break the rod when they experience that some absurd invention of pious fools is exposed to the curse of ridicule. Why am I saying all this? Because I would like to establish the idea that as a critic or reformer of his church should only appear before the public who has the will and the power to really improve what he sees as in need of improvement, or at least is able to do his exhibitions and to make his suggestions heard at the relevant authority. Otherwise, with the best of disposition, he will only offend the weak and bring joy to the enemy ”(69). that a critic or reformer of his church should only appear before the public if he has the will and the power to actually improve what he sees as in need of improvement, or at least is in a position to listen to his exhibitions and his suggestions at a decisive point To provide. Otherwise, with the best of disposition, he will only offend the weak and bring joy to the enemy ”(69). that a critic or reformer of his church should only appear before the public if he has the will and the power to actually improve what he sees as in need of improvement, or at least is in a position to listen to his exhibitions and his suggestions at a decisive point To provide. Otherwise, with the best disposition, he will only offend the weak and bring joy to the enemy ”(69).

But unfortunately little or no attention was paid to these warning words. In the indexed novel “IISanto” by Antonio Fogazzaro (1842-1911) we find the following passages which look back on what we said about the secret societies: “We are,” says Don Paolo, “a number of Catholics in Italy and outside Italy, clergy and laity seeking church reform. We want to see this reform brought about without indignation, through the lawful authority. We want reforms of religious instruction, reforms of cult, reform of the discipline of the clergy, and even reforms of the highest regiment. 

Therefore we have to create a public opinion that will cause the lawful authority to act accordingly, even if it is not for twenty, thirty or fifty years (!). Now we are who we think so are actually individual people living apart from one another. We don’t know anything about the other, with the exception of the few who publish articles or books. There is very likely a very large number of religious and well-educated people in the Catholic world who think like us. I have now believed that it would be very useful for the propaganda of our ideas to at least know us. Tonight we are meeting here, only a few, for an initial understanding … “(70).” He added, raising his voice and speaking more slowly, his eyes fixed on Abbe Marinier, that it was appropriate for the time being do not say anything about the meeting or the decisions that would be made, and he urged everyone to to consider oneself committed to silence by word of honor. Then he developed his thought and the purpose of this meeting again in a little more detail than had happened at dinner “(71).

“We probably agree that the Catholic Church is comparable to an old temple which, originally of noble simplicity, of great religious spirituality, was disfigured and overloaded with all kinds of flourishes and stucco work through the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Perhaps the malevolent among them will notice that only a dead language is spoken aloud in it, that living languages ​​are hardly spoken softly, and the sun shines colored in through the windows. But I can’t believe we can all agree on the quality and quantity of the remedies. And I would therefore think it would be more correct that one, before going to the establishment of this Catholic Freemasonry progressed, agreed on the nature of the reforms. Yes, I want to go further. I believe that even if there was complete agreement of ideas among them, I would not advise them to bind themselves with a tangible bond. 

My concerns are very delicate. They confidently believe that they can swim well underwater like cautious fish, and they do not think that the keen eye of the sublime fisherman or one of his deputies will do themvery well discover and a well-aimed blow of the harpoon can catch them. Well, I would never advise the finest, tastiest, most sought-after fish to bond with each other. They understand what has to happen when one is caught and pulled to the surface. And you know very well that the great fisherman in Galilee put the fish in his pond, but the great fisherman in Rome bakes them “(72).

The aim was to establish a secret union of all like-minded people, a Catholic Freemasonry, where the word was uttered that sounds almost prophetic: “The reforms will be realized one day, the thoughts are stronger than the people and make their way” (73) have made their way exactly in fifty years. But the other has also happened: The great fisherman in Rome pulled the fish to the surface. It was Pius X. who in his encyclical “Pascendi” of September 8, 1907 pronounced the condemnation of modernism. It is deeply to be regretted that this circular was not reprinted, so that every reader can immediately see for himself how everything that is called new and progressive today was already expressed back then, i.e. is neither new nor progressive.

Let us now begin with a brief outline of the circular. The Pope regrets that the modernist errors “have appeared in the bosom of the Church, even within the clergy. These enemies of the church pose as “reformers of the church” and, with blasphemous impudence, depress the divine person of the Redeemer into a mere wretched person “. The modernists are “worse than all other enemies of the church” because they “lend a hand to the roots, to the faith and to the deepest fibers of the faith. They are extremely nimble and shrewd”. “They alternately play the role of the rationalist and the Catholic with such skill that they can easily pull any harmless person to their errors.” They no longer recognize authority and “don’t want to accept any more restrictions. The Catholic faith itself is at risk. To remain silent for longer would be a sin. We have to talk, we have to tear off their masks in front of the whole church. “

After this spirited introduction, the Pope takes up the errors in detail. Since, according to the modernists, God cannot be recognized from visible things, the so-called motiva credibilitatis are no longer used – even today they are hardly mentioned any more. As far as history is concerned, it should be explained as “as if God actually did not intervene”. Therefore, from the history of Christ, too, “everything that looks divine is to be deleted.” “There are Catholics, there are even some priests who profess this publicly, and with such madness they want to renew the Church. There is certainly no more thorough “clearing up of all supernatural order.” As far as dogmas in general are concerned, “they are only inadequate signs for its content, symbols”.

The Pope closes this passage with the sharp words: “In the frenzy of their arrogant arrogance of knowledge, these blind guides even perverted the eternally true concepts of truth and religion; they have established a new system, and in a wild, rampant hunt for something new, they forget to seek the truth where their safe place is; The holy, apostolic traditions are despised and other doctrines are called to the rescue, which are vain and vain and uncertain and do not have the approval of the Church; and with this they believe in their delusion that they can support and hold the truth themselves. “

We would be surprised if the claim had not already been made at that time that “all religions are true.” The same applies to the question “whether Christ worked real miracles, really foresaw the future, whether he really rose and ascended to heaven “. Just as today, God was already transferred into man at that time: “God is immanent in man.” Like the dogmas before, the sacraments are “merely symbols or signs”. At this point the Pope adds a remark that could be written today: “As an example, to show the nature of their work, certain keywords are pointed out which, as one would say,“ pull ”because they are used for propaganda powerful and exciting ideas have great traction. “

The parallelism to our time is particularly evident in the modernist statements about the church: “In earlier times there was a mistake that authority was introduced into the church from outside, namely directly through God. That is why they could be considered autocratic. This view has now been overcome. Authority, like the church, thus arises from religious consciousness and must therefore submit to it. If it withdraws from him, it becomes tyranny. But we are now living in a time when the feeling of freedom (sensus libertatis) has reached its peak. In state life, democracy (popular regimes) has prevailed … That is why the ecclesiastical authority must also take on democratic forms (auctoritati Ecclesiae officium inest democraticis utendi formis) and all the more so because otherwise its doom is sealed. Because it would be madness to think of reactionary measures in view of the current development of the idea of ​​freedom. Forced pushing back and constriction would lead to an explosion that sweeps away church and religion. “There are already elements here for today’s theology of the revolution. It would be surprising if the alleged triumphalism of the church had not been fought back then raised the demand that the church “should give up all external pomp that is too grandiose in the eyes, because the task of church authority only relates to the clergy”. 

In summary, the Pope says: “The general principle applies here: In a religion that lives, everything is understandable, so it has to change. This is how they come to the development (evolutio), so to speak the quintessence of their entire teaching. Dogma, church, religious cult, the books that we venerate as sacred, and even faith itself, if we do not want to declare them all dead, must be subject to the laws of development. “This development arises” from the conflict of two Forces, one pushing for progress and one conservatively reticent. The conservative element is very strong in the Church; it lies in tradition. Its representative is religious authority, both by right, because it comes to authority, tradition to protect, as well as actually; because authority stands apart from the changing life and is hardly or not at all affected by everything that drives progress. In contrast to this, the force that urges progress and adapts to the deepest needs weaves and works in the consciousness of the laity, especially those who, as they say, are in the midst of the whirlpool of life : The modernists are of the opinion that “their place is and will remain within the Church in order to gradually change the general consciousness”, that is to say the subversive reorganization of today.

In the scripture section we read verbatim: “Hence, the modernists are quite familiar with the distinction between the Christ of history and the Christ of faith.”

One more word about the modernists’ reform concerns, which the Pope reproduces in a kind of catalog. He explains: “What has been said so far is enough to show the boundless, ardent desire for innovation of these people. The same applies to everything that the Catholics have. – The philosophy should be renewed, especially in the clerical seminaries; scholastic philosophy is to be referred to the other systems that have been overcome in the history of philosophy, and the only correct modern philosophy corresponding to our time is to be presented to young people (today existentialism). The dogmas and their development must be reconciled with science and history. – As for catechesis, catechetical writings should only deal with dogmas which are modernized and correspond to the comprehension of the people … The ecclesiastical office (regimen) is to be reformed in every respect, especially on the disciplinary and dogmatic side. It has to adapt internally and externally to their modern consciousness, which is wholly inclined towards democracy; therefore the lower clergy, as well as the lay world, must receive their share in the regime, and the overarching centralized authority must be decentralized. The Roman congregations for the various ecclesiastical affairs, especially those of the Holy Office and the Index, must also be changed. In morality one appropriates the principle of Americanism that the active virtues take precedence over the passive ones and that their practice must be encouraged before others. – The clergy are expected to show humility and poverty as they reigned in ancient times; In doing so, he should adhere to the modernist ideas in action and conviction. There are even those who, as docile students of the Protestants, also wanted the priest’s celibacy to be lifted. There is absolutely nothing left in the Church that does not have to be reformed according to its recipe. “The Pope then examines how modernism came about and says the following:” There are three main things that modernists think of theirs Beginning against knowing: the scholastic method in philosophy, the authority and tradition of the fathers and the ecclesiastical magisterium – these are the fiercest struggles. Scholastic philosophy and theology are therefore consistently mocked and despised. May this happen out of ignorance or out of fear or, more correctly, for both reasons, one thing is certain: the addiction to innovation is always connected with hatred of scholasticism; and there is no surer sign of incipient affection for modernist doctrines than when one begins to feel aversion to the scholastic method. “

And here is another point that seems very familiar to us when we think of the mass media: “Their own partisans shower the modernists with excessive, never-ending praise, and they welcome their books, which are bursting with innovations from beginning to end with loud applause; the more boldly someone overturns the old and rejects tradition and ecclesiastical teaching, the more learned he is; and when the ecclesiastical condemnation finally hits one, he is not only, to the horror of all good Catholics, loudly and publicly praised by the whole crowd, but is worshiped almost as a martyr of truth. – The young people let themselves be confused and moved by all the noise, these praise and diatribes;

But that is one of the tricks with which the modernists sell their goods. They leave no stone unturned to increase the number of their followers. At the clerical seminaries and universities they lurk for professorships in order to move them increasingly to the chairs of doom. When they preach in church, they present their doctrines, if perhaps only in hiding; they speak more freely in meetings. In short, in agitation, in word and writing, everywhere they develop a truly feverish activity. “

If one studies the whole encyclical in this way, one is struck by the – one might almost say – prophetic clairvoyance of this holy Pope, with which, in view of his time, he foresaw ours. Yes, it almost seems as if that encyclical was intended to hit modernism much more strongly than that at the beginning of the century, which had not penetrated the believing people so deeply and so comprehensively for a long time, and what Pius X as a final judgment said about modernism, is actually only being fulfilled today: “Protestantism was the first step; then comes modernism; the end is atheism. “We experience it today in the” God is dead theology “. Yes, Paul VI. is right when he perceives a resurgence of modernist errors today. Pope John XXIII had seen clearly when he said about modernism in 1907: “Woe to that day when these teachings prevail” (75).

But Fogazzaro was also right: it took around 50 years for the thoughts expressed in the small circle at that time to prevail and lead to the crisis in the church that left it far behind at the time of the Reformation.

The response to the encyclical is reflected in a pastoral letter from the German bishops gathered in Cologne on December 10, 1907, in which it says, among other things: “We will have to add to these and similar symptoms and approaches of modernism that sometimes emerge in us to criticize and reform that unfortunately increasing addiction, without profession, without correct judgment and sufficient knowledge, which is the disease of our time and does not stop at any authority, transforming the most venerable institutions according to the “modern consciousness” into the organization and administration of the church would like to introduce incompatible parliamentarism and democracy and is not afraid to appear in public papers and magazines, even in anti-church,to the greatest joy of the opponents, to sell their judgmentless and irreverent statements about church superiors and institutions “(76).

Doesn’t this exactly apply to our time? The syllabus “Lamentabili” of July 3, 1907 is closely related to the encyclical “Pascendi”. 65 modernist propositions or doctrines are rejected here. We will only pick out a few of them where the closeness to the present is particularly striking.

Sentence 1 reads: “The interpretation of the holy books given by the Church is not to be despised, but is subject to more precise assessment and correction by the exegetes.”

Sentence 30: “In all texts of the Gospel the name” Son of God “is only synonymous with the name” Messiah “, but in no way does it mean that Christ is really and essentially the Son of God.”

Sentence 36: “The resurrection of Christ is not actually a fact of historical order, but a fact neither proven nor provable, purely supernatural order, which the Christian consciousness has gradually derived from others.”

Sentence 37: “Initially, the belief in the resurrection of Christ was not so much about the fact of the resurrection as about the immortal life of Christ with God.”

Sentence 49: “As the Christian Lord’s Supper gradually took the form of a liturgical act, those who usually presided over the Lord’s Supper acquired the priestly character.”

Sentence 53: “The organic constitution of the church is not unchangeable, but Christian society, like human society, is subject to constant development.”

Sentence 58: “Truth is not more unchangeable than man himself, since it unfolds with him, in him and through him.”

That may be enough. If you look at all of this – actually all 65 sentences should be quoted – a holy anger grips us because we dare to present everything as new and modern and progressive in accordance with the spirit of the 2nd Vatican Council, while it is only warmed up, linguistically new formulated and modernized 50-year-old modernism. It remains incomprehensible that, of all times, the anti-modernist oath, which was prescribed on September 1, 1910, was lifted in our day. And all of this, although the old Lutheran theologian Dr. Dr. Cornelius Freiherr von Heyl said: “Nevertheless, it is unmistakable how extensively Catholicism is protected from enthusiasm and subjectivism by teaching. Individual Catholic authors today talk about the anti-modernist decision of Pius IX. and Pius X. as if this is an embarrassing point! On the other hand, I take the opportunity to say how good it would be if the most essential anti-modernist formulations were mutatis mutandis everywhere in the non-Roman churches as well. Incidentally, it may be that I am more Catholic here than contemporary Catholicism, even if I was pleased with the statements made by the Curia against Teilhard de Chardin … In so far as Catholicism is (and remains) anti-modernist by virtue of the inherent penetrative power of the papal structure, and in this respect if he (on the formal side) saves the concept of obedience in the Church of the present, he would have to give the Old Lutherans, the Old Reformed,(77).

“CRYPTOGAMOUS” HERESY

SO BECAUSE, according to the Pope’s words, “the enemy of the human race” had broken into the innermost realm of the Church, into the “blood of the Church, into its deepest interior”. The holy Pope saw the great danger and put down the enemy. But what Luke said at the end of the story of temptations was repeated: “When the devil had ended all temptations, he left him (Christ) until his time” (4:13).

Until his time. And that started today. This does not mean that in the half century between Pius X and Paul VI. would not have pushed modernist ideas from the underground to the surface here and there. One should only refer to the book by the unnamed Catholic theologians and laypeople, published in 1937: “Catholicism, His Stirb und Werde” (78), which in places breathes a modernist spirit and called for the reply of the Paderborn theologians: “Reform Catholicism” (79 ), to which those theologians and laypeople responded with the script: “The Catholicism of the future, construction and critical defense” (80). In this book Pius X is strongly attacked, with reference to the intrigues of the integralists towards the end of the Pius government X. pointed out which you can read more about in the papal story by Schmidlin (81). Currents aimed at criticizing forms of piety and at a certain softening of the Christian view of life were even more alarming. Two valuable books must be mentioned here, the “Sentire cum Ecclesia” by August Doerner (82) and “Irrwege und Abweg” im Pietysleben der Gegenwart “by Max Kassiepe (83). The deviations that were made in the veneration of Mary had a disastrous effect. Via Fatima, the order of the day was the dogmatization of bodily reception The opportunity of Mary’s in Heaven was doubted, and the consecration of Germany to the Immaculate Heart of Mary met with critical voices. The Marian Pope Pius XII sensed the smoldering and coming calamity. He tried to stop it especially in the encyclical “Humani generis” from the year 1950,where, almost in anticipation of the coming crisis, he spoke of the importance of the ecclesiastical magisterium and said the following with regard to the papal circulars: “It should by no means be assumed that what is presented in the encyclicals does not require consent, because the popes do not exercise the highest power of all their teaching office. Indeed, these encyclicals are expressions of the ordinary magisterium, of which the word of Christ also applies: “He who hears you hears me” (Lk 10:16). Most of the time, what the encyclicals present and inculcate belongs to the Catholic teaching material, as it has already done. When the popes, after careful examination, give a judgment on a previously controversial issue in their writings, then it is clear to all

But with that we are already close to the council. The anthology “Heresies of Time – A Book for Differentiating Spirits”, edited by Anton Böhm (85), is almost like a résumé of the subcutaneous tendencies, a book that has been completely forgotten, although it has been completely forgotten today could still be a guide through the turmoil of our time. None other than Karl Rahner coined the term of the cryptogamous heresies, which, as he believes, exist today to a much greater extent than before. Rahner says literally: Our whole “The space of existence is undoubtedly also shaped by attitudes, doctrines, tendencies that must be qualified as heretical, as contradicting the teaching of the Gospel” (86). These cryptogamous heresies are difficult to determine; For example, “respect for the corporeal and its idolatry are difficult to distinguish in their objectivation.” One can even say: ‘Everyone today is infected by the bacteria and viruses of cryptogamous heresy, even if he does not necessarily qualify as sick from them must be “:” this cryptogamous heresy “is perfectly compatible with” explicit orthodoxy “. Of course, this heresy tries, as it were, to penetrate from the hidden to the surface, so that it could become tangible and ascertainable. But this is opposed by the fact that “today people are afraid of defining concepts in religious questions”. One can now ask what the tactic of this heresy consists of “in order to remain latent”. Rahner replies: Heresy has the worst effect in the form of “indifference”. If we allow all of these examples to work on us, then our eyes will see an exact picture of our present situation. The Magisterium can proclaim the truth, it can conceptually formulate such heretical tendencies, as happened for the first time in the modernism encyclical Pius X. It but can do little against the silent heresy itself. ” In order to reject it to some extent, it would have to be overcome “out of the inner nature of the matter” and not “through the mere administrative route”. Here is the reason

Karl Rahner continues to claim that the fight against cryptogamous heresy is therefore above all given up to the conscience of the individual. In this context he makes a statement that is downright prophetic when we consider the development of the Church today. He says: “All or most of the postulates of today or tomorrow will have something absolutely correct or justifiable or historically inevitable about them, even in so far as they mean a distancing from the lifestyle of earlier generations, including Christian generations.” He believes that “The cryptogamous heresy, especially where it wants to remain latent, like a heresythe wrong dosage, the exaggeration, the one-sidedness “and how it” depends today on the emphasis, the dosage and weight distribution and how difficult it is for the ecclesiastical teaching office to face this task “(87). So much for this excellent introduction.

SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL

AND NOW we have reached the 2nd Vatican Council. We have already seen how much they wanted a council in secret societies. In the high spirits of the early days, this was ignored at all (88) and the opponents paid far too little attention to the assessments of what happened in the Council. And yet such things are often judged more sharply and accurately from the outside than by the actors themselves. An issue of the magazine “Ost -problem” (89) is immensely informative here, where an article taken from the Moscow magazine “Kommunist” (90) deals with “Religious” Renewal “and the Catholic Church”. The subheadings of this article alone are noteworthy, for example, “The Current Crisis of Religion”, “Modernism (! ) in the politics of the church and in theology “,” The social function of “renewal” “. The tenor of the extensive article is to present the change in the church as “the opportunistic tactics of the churchmen and all their tricks”Sees crisis and that one lists almost exhaustively all its symptoms. So there is talk of the “crisis of religious ideology”, of the “modernization of the ecclesiastical position both in the literal theological, religious questions, as well as in the current problems of world politics”. “In the area within the church, which is actually religious, a modernization of the ideological arsenal, of the cult and of the organization itself is taking place. Here is the process of a peculiar Reformationin full swing, we are looking for new ways to maintain the influence of religion in our age of increasing godlessness, anti-clericalism and free-thinking and to shed new light on reason, science and religion “…” The dialectic of the process of religious renewal taking place before our eyes consists in the fact that this renewal is a sign of the weakness of religion, but at the same time is a means of increasing their influence. Therefore, the exposure of the latest methods of defense of reactionary religious theology requires the energetic efforts of all adherents of the materialist worldview, advocates of scientific ideology. “

It is precisely this last sentence that should be read and reconsidered repeatedly by those who, with their aggiornamento, want to bring about an inner change in those atheistic ideologies. The activity of John XXIII. and the Second Vatican Council are judged as ways of revaluing values ​​- a word that makes us think (91).

That was in 1964. The Italian Communist Party expressed itself even more clearly at its 11th Party Congress. In the introduction to a special issue of the “Propaganda” “dedicato al dialogo con Cattolici” one clearly speaks of the “crisis” of the Church: “The extraordinary awakening of the Council, which is rightly compared with the General Estates of 1789, has shown the whole world that the foundations of the old politico-religious Bastille have been shaken. This created a new situation that would have to be met with appropriate means. There was a hitherto unforeseen opportunity to come closer to our final victory with a suitable maneuver. ” This introduction then outlines the various sections of this ‘Speciale’ and says e.g. B. in the section ‘Documentation’ that here, Humanism. Paul VI receives Comrade Gromyko in the Vatican and talks to him about the problems of peace. Marxism-Leninism adapts to the new state of affairs, and it is flexible or violent, depending on the situation … The section “Arguments” … contains numerous references to the decisions made by the Council. “In this way the council itself gives us the best means free of charge to reach the Catholic public.” And the end of this introduction reads: “Mai la situazione ci e stata cosi favorevole, the situation has never been like this for us Cheap.”

It will have to be admitted that these texts speak a clear language. It would be advisable that all those who disregard the warning and admonishing statements of the Pope, carefully consider these omissions just quoted.

At the same time illuminating and frightening is the fact that the Council has been compared with the storming of the Bastille of 1789, i.e. with the French Revolution, and we have already shown that this is not so absurd. In any case, the fundamental ideas of the revolution – freedom, equality and fraternity – have been brought into the consciousness so strongly that one can hardly imagine a reduction to the important and justified level. It is still too early to give a final judgment on the council. But the fateful thing is that such great events touch different levels, even take place on different levels. Certainly the texts are quite orthodox, in places formulated almost classically, and our task will be for a long time to come Wasn’t the cryptogamous attack on the “old political-religious bastille” of the papacy lurking in collegiality? Didn’t the struggle for the “nota explica-tiva praevia”, which was added to the church constitution (93), prove that? The opponent also gives an explanation that is clear and informative. The “Voices of the Time” (94) had an article under the heading “Have the Freemasons changed”? The author refers to the European Freemasons newspaper (95), which discussed the problem of the papacy in its September 1964 issue and said of the Council of Constance (1414 to 1418): “The reformers couldn’t get away with the hierarchical constitution of the church with the omnipotent Pope at the top has remained to this day. ” After this excursion into the history of the Council, the author returns to Vatican II: “To break the personal primacy of the Pope would be the prerequisite for the Unio sancta and for the unification of the Church. – We believe with a fair degree of certainty that we can say that the Pope’s infallibility and his primacy over the Council will not be broken in 1964 either. In the area of ​​the church constitution, the Middle Ages will continue to protrude into our time – we think: not for the benefit of the church and the modern problems that have to be overcome. And as long as the personal supremacy of an individual in the church constitution is not removed, we believe that any reform in other areas will also fail. The constitutional power of the Pope and his appointed cardinals is the institutional obstacle to any better understanding and reform. On the other hand, if the privilege and infallibility of the Pope are removed, the Church can no longer exercise the power of suggestion over the masses of the believing population as it has before. The Church and the Council are therefore in an indissoluble dilemma here. We do not believe that the Council in Rome this year will be able to deal with these things, however much the symptoms will be mended. ” 

AND TODAY?

WHAT THEN, around ten years ago, still had a question mark, has now taken on very clear contours. The primacy of the Pope has suffered severe losses and the “gates of hell” that fight against the rock are already advanced so far that they come close to the porta di bronzo of the Vatican. The Pope is right: the devil is in them Church collapsed. Of course, we still lack an analysis of his methods, which one could easily recognize if one only adhered to the statements of the New Testament about him. Only some of these of his methods are mentioned. To camouflage the angel of light “(2 Cor 11:14) by throwing the divine gift of reason into the pan: Everything that happens today in the form of reforms in the church, can be reasonably justified. The need of the times also does something else, and what was only permitted as an exception for mission areas, for example, becomes a habit for us too. Why not? One generally fearfully avoids the open fight against truths of faith, one makes it more elegant, one no longer talks about them, or one mutilates them into half statements in the certain knowledge that half truths are worse than whole lies. 

Finally, the new is brought into such close proximity to the “old” truths that a strong dose of the gift of the spirit of the “discretio spirituum, the differentiation of spirits” (1 Cor 12, 10) is part of it, in order to convert the genuine from the false and the truth to distinguish from falsehood. When you study these methods, you come to the conclusion that that the devil today does not place so much emphasis on remaining undetected and “cryptogamously” operating his work of destruction, but rather that he wants to manifest himself openly and publicly ) in 1968 quite frankly: “Among the pillars that collapse most easily, we note the power of teaching; the infallibility, which the First Vatican Council believed to be firmly established and which just had to endure the storms of the married couple on the occasion of the publication of the encyclical «Humanae vitae»; the real Eucharistic presence which the Church was able to impose on the medieval masses and which will disappear with the progress of intercommunions and intercelebrations of Catholic priests and Protestant pastors; the sacred character of the priest, which comes from the institution of the sacrament of ordination and which will give way to a temporary election; the distinction between the instructing church and the black (lower) clergy, where from now on the movement from the base (!) upwards takes place as in every democracy; the gradual disappearance of the ontological and metaphysical character of the sacraments and then immediately the death of confession, after sin has become a completely anachronistic concept in our time, which the strict medieval philosophy, this heirloom of biblical pessimism, had bequeathed to us.

“In The whole strategy is developed here with “pleasant” open-heartedness, and one only wonders why nothing or so little happens, to secure these pillars and prevent them from collapsing. Anyone who, in view of these unambiguous confessions, still thinks today that the processes in the church are marginal phenomena or transitional difficulties that subside by themselves after a while, simply cannot be helped. But the responsibility of the leading men in the church is all the greater if they do not deal with these questions and think – compare what was said earlier – that they can fix everything with a patchwork. No, it is about the whole thing, it is about the Church, it is, as the magazine “L’Humanisme” writes from May-October 1968 (97), about “a kind of Copernican revolution” that has broken out over the Church; it is about a “gigantic revolution in the church” (98),(99) already carries within itself.

And now we have reached the climax, and we just wish that the following quotation from L’Humanisme would be recognized in its full scope (100): “When the traditional structures collapse, all the rest will follow. The Church has such a contestation was not foreseen, nor is it prepared for a long time to absorb this revolutionary spirit and assimilate itself … It is not the scaffold that awaits the Pope, it is the rise of the local churches, which are democratically organized, the barriers between clergy and lay people who create their own dogma and who live in complete independence with regard to Rome. “

We return to the beginning. In his pastoral letter, Athanasius lists what happened in Alexandria at that time: “Church robbery, arson, blasphemy, desecration of virgins, flogging and murder.” Are the local churches not emerging or already in full activity when they submit to the majority and thus to the often arbitrary number and not to the truth at synods through democratic votes? “It will soon no longer be possible for the Vatican be “, says the mentioned magazine (101)” to keep under control the inner movements of a large body, which was thought to be homogeneous … Wouldn’t it be time to return to more «national» churches? “- So the scaffold is not waiting for the Pope. How humane our time has become! Only the local churches are waiting for the Pope, he has to come to terms with them. One can to point to examples of the past, the word falls of the Gallican Church. Here history is allowed again, if one otherwise deliberately remains silent about it and the whole tradition. At the end of the development, however, the Pope is superfluous because the local churches “Live in complete independence with regard to Rome”. 

So the scaffold in the form of annihilation. One can point to examples from the past; the word about the Gallican Church is mentioned. Here history is allowed again, if one is otherwise deliberately silent about it and the whole tradition. At the end of the development, however, the Pope is superfluous because the local churches “live in complete independence with regard to Rome”. So the scaffold in the form of annihilation. One can point to examples from the past; the word about the Gallican Church is mentioned. Here history is allowed again, if one is otherwise deliberately silent about it and the whole tradition. At the end of the development, however, the Pope is superfluous because the local churches “live in complete independence with regard to Rome”. So the scaffold in the form of annihilation.

We are very grateful for this open language. We now know where we are. The Luciferian plan is clear and open before us.

CONCLUSION

From Athanasius

“THEREFORE, however, you must not fear their malice, but must … be indignant about the new machinations against us. For if one member suffers, everyone suffers with it, and according to the apostle’s word, weep with those who weep. As the great Church suffers, everyone must tolerantly see that the offense receives its punishment. For everyone is the Redeemer who is reviled by them, it is all laws that are dissolved by them … For all these reasons I ask you … to condemn the wicked, so that the priests here and the people also now to see your right faith and your resolute rejection and to be able to rejoice in your unanimous faith in Christ, but those who have so greatly wronged themselves in the Church, be induced to repent and – even if it should be possible late – to come to a change of mind. Greet the fellowship of the brothers with you! All the brothers gathered with me greet you. May the Lord keep you intact and in faithful remembrance for us … “

From Görres

“The earth is shaking underfoot; the tools that are counted on fail; some kind of catastrophe that one does not expect occurs and the whole building, which has long been undermined, collapses. That the Church will emerge unscathed from such a collapse can be foreseen with certainty; but what else would outlast it, no one can know or estimate. So admonish, warn, wave, defend, call out all the signs; Even the animals, on which the false prophets ride ahead, tree, turn back, and speak angrily in human language to their drivers, who do not see the flaming sword flickering in their way … Therefore work when it is still daylight.

Nobody can work at night. Waiting is also nothing for all waiting has since served only to worsen the situation in a rapidly increasing proportion. If one finds oneself in an unequal dispute with one another, there can be no doubt about it, if one only looks at those who one has for oneself. One may argue back and forth about principles, light and wind divided equally with equal sincerity. But when all lies and all bad passions crowd around a banner like vultures around a carrion that falls by the way; then it is certainly not the Labarum under whose sign a good quarrel is fought. Because the bad has its instincts, which do not lead it astray on its way. But a power that sees all these tracks directed against itself has every cause to be frightened, and in times of serious consideration to be careful about the outcome. For her part, the Church, which is pure and clear in her good rights, can remain unmoved in good rest; because who is like God! is written in flames on her shield, and before this saying all earthly splendor pales into nothingness, and all earthly power faints “(from the epilogue to the fourth edition of” Athanasius “, Easter 1838) (102).

NOTES

(1) Berthold Altaner, Patrologie (Freiburg i. Breisgau 1950 2 ), p. 230.

(2) Konrad Kirch, Heroes of Christianity (Paderborn 1936 5 ): From Christian antiquity p. 12 f.

(3) Joseph Görres, Athanasius (Regensburg 1838), 4th edition.

(4) Joseph Lortz, History of the Church from the perspective of the history of ideas (Münster i. W. 1941) § 111 B (IV, 52).

(5) Franz Schnabel, German History in the 19th Century, Volume IV, The Religious Forces (Freiburg 1937) p. 139.

(6) aaO, S. VI.

(7) ibid.

(8) ebd. S. VII.

(9) ibid. P. VIII; cf. Roman Pencil, Searching for a New Confession, in “Deutsche Tagespost” of January 12/13, 1973.

(10) ebd. S. 113.

(11) ebd. S. 118.

(12) Bergstadtverlag Breslau. – On the author cf. Gerhard Kukofka, “Staunen und Sehnsucht” in “Urbild und Abglanz”; Festgabe for Herbert Doms, ed. by Johannes Tenzler (Regensburg 1972) I, pp. 489-497.

(13) ibid. Cf. 491, note 1: “Note the eminently prophetic gift of the writer Flam … Has it partly become a reality that is far exceeded?

(14) aaO, S. 489.

(15) K. Flam, aaO, S. 84.

(16) Selected writings from St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church, in the Library of the Church Fathers (Kösel-Pustet, Munich 1925) Volume I, p. 121.

(17) ebd. S. 129.

(18) ibid.

(19) ebd. S. 139.

(20) ebd. S. 137.

(21) ebd. S. 143.

(22) ebd. S. 163; Quote 2 Thess 2, 3-4.

(23) K. Kirch aaO, Band I, 2; S. 23 f.

(24) Ri 19, 29-20, 11.

(25) “Osservatore Romano” of December 8, 1968;
cf. also Helmut Kuhn in his contribution to the special issue of the magazine “Word and Truth” (March / April 1972): “The State of the Roman Catholic Church”: “In the summer In Paris in 1970 I spoke to Raymond Aron, arguably the most important sociologist in France, about the student riots at European and American universities, and we agreed that these events, disastrous as they might be, would be overshadowed by another Happened on a worldwide scale and of epochal importance – through the collapse of the Roman Catholic Church “(p. 155).

(26) Migne, Patr. Graec. Volume 27 (Athanasius I) col. 219-240; see Bar-denhewer, History of Early Christian Literature (Freiburg 1902/1932) Volume III, p. 70; Real Lexicon for Antiquity and Christianity (Stuttgart 1950) Volume I Athanasius col. 863. I owe the translation of this circular to Fr. Benedikt Busch, Metten Abbey.

(27) KNA No. 194 of November 21, 1972: “The thing with the devil”, reactions to the Pope’s speech of November 15, 1972, cf. German edition of the “Osservatore Romano”, 2nd year No. November 1972, p. 1.

(28) aaO, S. 162 f.

(29) Marquis de la Franquerie, L’infallibilite pontifale – The syllabus and the current crisis of the Church (als Manuskript gedruckt, o. J.) S. 41 ff.

(30) “In this kind will be recognized by insane and dark, almost seems to be the very point where Satan is Jesus Christ burns, the insatiable desire for revenge hatred” in Enzyklika “human race” vom 20. April 1884 Uber die Freimaurer.

(31) in his circular “Pascendi” of September 8, 1907.

(32) Albert Erhard, Early Church and Early Catholicism (Bonn 1935) p. 194.

(33) Furche-Verlag 1964 pp. 15-39.

(34) cf. “Neue Zürcher Zeitung” of August 20, 1966: “Church-theological disputes in the Federal Republic; the confessional movement as a symptom of crisis” and in it as a subheading “Aspects of the Enlightenment”.

(35) aaO, S. 119-121.

(36) Max Spindler, Handbuch der Bayerischen Geschichte Volume II, 1028-1032 (Munich 1966) p. 1028: “The history of the Illuminati Order is a phenomenon of European importance and effect”; cf. Serge Hutin, Gouvemants invisibles et societes secretes ( EditionsJ’ai lu 1971) keeps coming back to Illuminatentum.

(37) Bernhard Fay, La Franc-Maconnerie and the Intellectual Revolution of the XVIIF siecle (Paris 1961) S. 203.

(38) Pierre Virion, Le Complot (Paris oJ) S. 46.

Serge Hutin aaO, S. 4 zitiert Pierre Mariel, L’Europe Pai’enne duXX e siecle, p. 170: “In fact, at all times – and now more than ever – secret companies rule the world”.

(39) Eugen Lennhoff / Oscar Posner, Internationales Freemaurerlexikon (unaltered reprint of the 1932 edition), Amalthea-Verlag Munich-Zurich-Vienna; – Horst E. Miers, Lexicon of Secret Knowledge (Freiburg i. Breis’gau 1970); – Kurt Seligmann, Das Weltreich der Magic (Stuttgart 1958).

(40) Pierre Virion, Mystere d’Iniquite (Editions St. Michel, St.-Cenere [53] oJ) S. 2 ff; vgl. auch Virion, Soon a world government ?, im gleichen Verlag 1968; vgl. auch Leon de Poncins, Christia-nisme and F.-. M.-. (L’Ordre Francais, December 1969); The F.-, M.-. according to its secret documents Diffusion de la Pensee Francaise 1972).

(41) in the Swiss newspaper “Der Republikaner” No. 39 of September 26, 1963.

(42) cf. these names in the lexicons mentioned.

(43) in Virion, Mysteries aaO, pp. 81-108.

(44) Alec Mellor, Our Separate Brothers The Freemasons (German translation) (Styria Graz-Wien-Cologne 1964). – Michel Dierickx SJ Freemasonry, The Great Unknown (Bauhüttenverlag Frankfurt / Hamburg 1968).

(45) in Virion, Mystere loc. Cit., P. 15 f; the satan hymn by Giosue Car-ducci can be found in Gerhard Zacharias, Satanskult und Schwarze Messe (a contribution to the phenomenology of religion) (Limes-Verlag Wiesbaden 1964), pp. 133-138.

(46) Virion, Mystere op. Cit., P. 19 ff. The following quotations are taken from this book and the above-mentioned Franquerie work.

(47) bei Franquerie aaO, S. 48.

(48) ebd. S. 48.

(49) ibid. P. 51, note 20.

(50) ibid. P. 50, note 14.

(51) ibid. P. 53, note 24.

(52) bei Virion, Mytere aaO, S. 41.

(53) ebd. S. 32.

(54) ebd. S. 42.

(55) ebd. S. 52 f.

(56) Yves Marsaudon, L’Oecumenisme vu par un Franc-Macon de Tradition (Editions Vitiano Paris-IX e ) 1964.

(57) JM Jourdan, L’oecumenisme vu par un Franc-Macon de Tradition (reprinted from the magazine “Permanences” 1965), S. 11.

(58) Marsaudon aaO, S. 26.

(59) ebd. S. 120.

(60) bei Jourdan aaO, S. 27.

(61) Marsaudon aaO, S. 126.

(62) Franquerie aaO, S. 46.

(63) ibid.

(64) Franquerie (p. 44) relocates the above-mentioned secret instructions to the year 1819; GM Pachtler (The silent war against throne and altar or the negative of Freemasonry, according to documents, Amberg, 2nd edition 1876, p. 83) and names the full title “Istruzione permanente, Codice e quida pratica dei Preposti all’alta massoneria” (Original text in the “Civiltä cattol.” 4 sett. 1875 quod. 605, p. 598 e se gg.).

It says: Our “idea is the liberation of Italy, from which on a certain day the liberation of the whole world, the brotherly republic and the unification of humanity must proceed … Our goal is rather that of Voltaire and the French Revolution: ie complete annihilation of Catholicism and even of the Christian idea … The Pope, whoever he is, will never come to the secret societies; therefore the secret connections must take the first step towards the Pope and the Church, with the intention of captivating both. The work we do is not the work of a day, month or year. It can take many years, maybe a century. 

We do not intend to win the Pope over to our cause, to make of him a neophyte of our principles or an apostle of our ideas. That would be a ridiculous dream. And however events may take shape, even if a cardinal or prelate with a full heart or cunning would become the initiate of our secrets, we ought not to want his elevation to the chair of Peter for that very reason. Yes, this elevation of his would also be our ruin. For just as he would have come to apostasy out of mere ambition, so too should the need for power determine him to sacrifice us. 

What we are looking for and what we must wait for, like the Jews for their Messiah, that is a Pope according to our needs … So in order to make a Pope according to our hearts, it is above all a matter of giving this future Pope a gender raising, which is worthy of the regiment we want. The old people and the mature men have to be left aside. Instead, go straight to the youth and where possible even to the childhood … Once your good reputation in the colleges, grammar schools, universities and seminars has been firmly established, once you have won the trust of professors and young people, make sure that that especially the candidates of the spiritual class visit your company … In several years this young clergy will hold all offices through the power of circumstances. He will rule, administer, judge, form the council of the sovereign (Pope), and be called to elect the future Pope …

Do not stretch your networks, like Simon Barjona, inside the sacristies, seminaries and convents in the depths of the sea. And if you do not rush into anything, we promise you an even more wonderful fishing trip than that of St. Peter. The fisherman became a fisherman of men, and you will fish friends even at the feet of the Apostolic See. So then you have a revolution in the net in tiara and cloak, at the top of which the cross and the great papal flag are carried; a revolution that only needs a little help to set fire to all four parts of the world … “(in Pachtler, op. cit., pp. 84, 87, 91 f, 92, 94 f). at the top of which the cross and the great papal flag are carried; a revolution that only needs a little help to set fire to all four parts of the world … “(in Pachtler, op. cit., pp. 84, 87, 91 f, 92, 94 f). at the top of which the cross and the great papal flag are carried; a revolution that only needs a little help to set fire to all four parts of the world … “(in Pachtler, op. cit., pp. 84, 87, 91 f, 92, 94 f).

 (65) dated August 6, 1964; cf. my contribution “Ecclesiam suam – the inaugural encyclical of Paul VI.” in Wilhelm Sandfuchs, Das Wort der Päpste (Würzburg 1966), pp. 212-224.

(66) “We see them again.”

(67) 3rd year 1905/6, 1st volume, pp. 553-567.

(68) ebd. S. 553.

(69) ebd. S. 555 f.

(70) ebd. S. 422.

(71) ebd. S. 522.

(72) ebd. S. 524 f vgl. auch Emmanuel Barbier, Masonic infiltrations in the church (Mont-Notre-Dame Aisne 1910) S. 8 f.

(73) Hochland aaO, S. 525.

(74) For the following we use the collection of the “Circulars of our Holy Father Pius X., 2 volumes 1909 and 1916, here Volume I, pp. 185-305, published by Herder (Freiburg).

(75) Franz Michel Willam, From the young Angelo Roncalli 1903-1907 to Pope Johannes XXIII. 1958-1963 (Innsbruck 1967) p. 90.

(76) Pastoral letter of the Cologne Bishops’ Conference of December 10, 1907, in “Circular” Pius X. loc. Cit., Volume II, p. 27.

(77) from the magazine “Una Sancta” (Kyrios Verlag Meitingen 1964) p. 250.

(78) edited by Gustav Mensching.

(79) Reform Catholicism, an answer to the book: Der Katholizismus. His death and development (Paderborn 1938).

(80) edited by Hermann Mulert (Leopold Klotz Verlag, Leipzig 1940).

(81) Josef Schmidlin, Papal History of the Latest Time (Munich 1936) Volume III, pp. 162-169.

(82) August Doerner, Sentire cum Ecclesia (printed as manuscript) 1941.

(83) Max Kassiepe, wrong ways and detours in the pious life of the present (Würzburg 1940).

(84) by Janet E. 42 (1950) S. 568.

(85) Freiburg-Basel-Vienna 1961; Karl Rahner, What is Heresy? Pp. 9-44.

(86) ebd. S. 34.

(87) ebd. S. 34 f; 36, 38 f, 40 f;

It is striking that the table of contents of the Herder correspondence until 1968, after the editorials, contained the statements of the ecclesiastical teaching office: a) the Pope b) the Curia c) the Episcopat, while from 1968 on the statements of the Pope under the heading “Pope” must be added to the letter P.

(88) How little impression did z. B. the anonymous writing distributed only to the Council Fathers: “L’azione Guidaico-Massonica nel Concilio”

(89) Volume 18 No. 14/15 (Bonn July 29, 1966). The whole issue deals with the position of communism in relation to world religions (Islam, Catholic Church, Protestant theology, collapse of the biblical worldview, etc.)

 (90) No. 15, 1964.

(91) Ostprobleme aaO, S. 452.

(92) Karl Rahner – Herbert Vorgrimler, Small Council Compendium (Herderbücherei Volume 270/71/72/73; 1966) p. 26: “The Council was a pastoral council”.

(93) ebd. S. 197-200.

(94) by Franz Hillig Volume 175 1965, pp. 97-106.

(95) Edited by Wolfgang Stammberger (Baden-Baden / Strasbourg).

(96) cited in Virion, Le Complot, loc. Cit., P. 109.

(97) ebd. S. 102.

(98) ebd. S. 104.

(99) ibid.

(100) ibid.

(101) ebd. S. 105.

(102) S. 197 f.

Worthy of leading us, you indomitable defender of the divinity of Christ. Listen to our calls; because you are kind and helpful.

Inspire us, guide us, pray for us the Most Holy Trinity that we, like you, endure to the end.

Remember the Christian East.

Would you like to meet us at the hour of death with the holy angels, your face enlightened by the Holy Spirit, in the splendor of your youth and your knowledge, just as you appeared to the people of Alexandria, who joyfully greeted you as bishop.

Introduce us to Christ our God. We choose you to be a leader in the struggle that we are by your side for the Nicene Faith.

Imprimatur: Cairo, July 12, 1971 Stephanos I Sidarouss, Cardinal-Patriarch of Alexandria

Through the intercession of St. Athanasius save the Church, O Redeemer!

15th edition (37th thousand), January 2000

Translations are available in English, French, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish.

J. Kral, publishing house printer • 93326 Abensberg

Origins of a Fake P2 List

The Italian website and Youtube channel, Italia Misterio, is a helpful source of authentic evidence in the search for clues about Masonic infiltration into the Vatican’s financial departments. In fact, it is a good source of material on Vatican intrigues and Masonry in general.

New videos are being constantly released, which show photographs, newspaper clippings and testimonies from witnesses at the trials of some of the most infamous Vatican-related personalities like Licio Gelli, Michael Sindona and Roberto Calvi. Even Archbishop Marcinkus and Pope John Paul I occasionally get a mention.

One video entitled “The Real P2 List” caught my eye. This article looks at the content of that video, with some facts checked and a few more details added.

Licio Gelli’s List

On March 17, 1981, Gelli’s Abruzzo villa was searched by members of the Guardia di Finanza. The search had been secretly ordered by Magistrate Gherardo Colombo, who was hoping to find missing money belonging to the Vatican-swindler Michele Sindona. Sindona and the primary accomplice in his staged kidnapping, the Freemason Joseph Micalli, had both been seen in the Arezzo area prior to the raid. Apparently, Micalli was ostensibly visiting his dentist, but Colombo was suspicious.

The raid on Arezzo’s villa found nothing of interest, but a search of Gelli and Micalli’s Company Giole, which operated as a front for their illegal activities, turned up something very interesting. Police found a suitcase full of documents, the most notable of which was a list of one thousand names of men said to be members of the infamous P2 Lodge.

Immediately upon the document being found, Orazio Giannini, the General Commander of the Guardia di Finanza, confided to his employees that his name would be on the list. Among others on the list were: two government Ministers, five Undersecretaries, 33 Parliamentarians, twelve Generals of the Carabinieri, five Generals of the Guardia di Finanza, 22 Italian Army Generals, four Air Force Generals and many magistrates and state officials, including Silvio Berlusconi. Also included on the list were Gelli himself, as well as other personalities linked to financial scandals involving the Vatican Bank – Roberto Calvi, Michele Sindona, Umberto Ortolani and Mino Peccorelli.

The discovery of the list and the subsequent raid on the Grand Lodge’s Rome headquarters led Italy’s Grand Orient Lodge to cut its ties with Gelli. In 1982, it is said to have dissolved P2 completely.

Although there is little doubt that the organisation has remained active in some form, discovery of the list and legal action against its corrupt, high-ranking members was the beginning of the end of P2’s popularity. Rumours began to circulate suggesting that P2 had never been a legitimate Lodge and that it was part of a KGB plot to destabilise Europe. While it is true that P2 members were implicated in murderous terrorist attacks, it is more likely, as author Martin Short suggests, that the Grand Lodge of London started those rumours to discredit P2. Until that time, the London Lodge had enjoyed a close relationship with its Italian counterpart: later it was in danger of becoming tainted by the scandals surrounding P2.

Gelli escaped to Switzerland where he was arrested, then escaped again and fled to Chile. A bizarre story links Gelli to the desecration of the body of former Argentine President Juan Peron. Peron’s hands were removed and a ransom (which was not forthcoming) was sought. Apart from the money angle, it is thought that the removal of the dictator’s hands was related to an occult practice designed to empower the new owner with Peron’s political charisms.

Gelli Approaches the Masons

According to Italia Mysterio, Gelli later approached his old Lodge, seeking to rejoin it. Gelli allegedly took the list of names to the Grand Master of the Great East Lodge, Ennio Battelli, who flipped through the file, then thrust it back at Gelli, saying, “I’ve never seen it. Take it back.” Gelli apparently tried again with Battelli’s successor, Giuliano Di Bernardo, who also refused to have anything to do with the list.

Gelli remained on the run for many years until he was finally found guilty of a string of crimes and imprisoned. He died in 2015.

Licio Gelli’s will apparently included a map showing the location of 163kg of gold ingots buried at his property in Arezzo. The will also pointed to a huge property and investment portfolio owned by Gelli, which included 172,000 ha in Paraguay, 14 palaces, part ownership in two companies, an orange plantation in Brazil and a 30 ha residential development package in Argentina.

Where are the Cardinals?

Assuming even part of this strange tale is true, we are left with many questions: What did Gelli hope to achieve by taking the list to the Grand Orient Lodge? Blackmail? Influence? If, as the author at Italio Mysterio suggests, this list was fake, then why would Gelli risk trying to pass it off as the true list to the very men who were sure to know the identities of P2’s members, that is, the Grand Masters?

Several theories suggest that Gelli was never the real head of P2. One theory is that this was instead Giulio Andreotti, the Italian politician. There are also rumours of a super-lodge, even more secret and more exclusive than P2.

Another theory is that this was all a huge hoax designed to throw suspicion away from the man believed by Italio Mysterio to be the real head of P2, that is: Umberto Ortolani. With all of this in mind, it is possible that the true P2 list is stashed safely away in an archive somewhere in one of Gelli’s former estates in Paraguay?

If this list was accurate, then where are the prelates whom we have been told – quite credibly – were Masons: Cassaroli, Villot, Tauren, Ravasi – none of these are included in this “P2” list? Remember, Gelli’s list was found only three years after the mysterious death of Pope John Paul I: the man who was ready to completely reshuffle the Curia in order to remove the one hundred or so prelates who had already been identified as Masons.

Is there a connection between the international scrutiny of P2 and the Vatican’s weak pronouncement of the incompatibility of Masonry and Catholicism in the 1983 Code of Canon Law?

What of the presence of the many Argentinian Masons on Gelli’s list? Is it a coincidence that the man who would become Pope was Provincial of the Jesuits in Argentina at the same time P2’s active membership included a strong Argentinian presence?

Revisiting Paul VI’s Masonic Portrait

This article was updated on July 4th, 2021, in order to somewhat reduce the extremities of my speculations – AC

In 1971, Paul VI was presented with a painting, said to be his portrait, and which, to be honest, is one of the more disturbing images this author has come across. The picture emits a demonic violence that almost leaps out of the frame, leaving the viewer feeling oppressed and unsettled.

Most startling of all, the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church is surrounded by cold, dark Masonic symbols, hiding in plain sight.

Hansing described the portrait as showing “the tension-fraught situation of the church, caught in a multiplicity of issues, as reflected in the countenance of the Pope.”

I don’t profess to be the first to discover this particular connection between Pope Paul VI and Masonry – the articles cited in this one are testimony to that. But since I have only just come across this rather disconcerting episode in Paul’s life, I thought I’d write on it anew and add some further research.

Firstly, there are not one but nine versions of this scene. Each tells, I believe, a part of a story that begins at the Second Vatican Council and culminates in the very public accusations that Paul was a homosexual. Shown below are three versions, created in 1970, 1970/1 and 1975 respectively. The third is part of a series of screen prints, which are based on the second painted version of the portrait.

The artist, Ernst Guenter Hansing, was initially associated with Cardinal Josef Frings, for whom he painted two portraits. Hansing had trained under the abstract artist, Fernand Leger, and had mixed with many avant-garde artists of Europe. This of course, would have appealed to Montini, who was known for his love of the cultural elite. Fring invited Hansing, a Lutheran, to observe the final session of Vatican Two in 1965, in order to “internalise the atmosphere.”

Hansing claims to have been struck by the Pope’s meekness, describing Paul as “humility personified” and as a “pleading” or “begging” person. Hansing at once expressed a desire to paint the Pope, so the story goes, wanting to encapsulate the scene presented by the massive Bernini columns dwarfing the humble Pope, he who alone carried the burden of determining the Church’s future. Hansing also wanted to capture the rays of light which issued from the great dome surmounting the canopy. So the story goes.

Paul apparently did not commission a portrait, but was approached by Hansing who was eventually given a room to work from inside the Vatican from 1969. The artist was then allowed to sit in on 13 papal audiences over the next two and a half years to make his sketches. The Pope’s secretary, then-Fr Pasquale Macchi, acted as go-between for the artist and pontiff.

Strangely, the image of the Pope at the centre of the painting was not based on the sketches Hansing made during those many papal audiences. Rather, it is based on a photograph taken during the Pope’s trip to Jerusalem in 1967. A drawing made from that photograph was then transposed onto the “Papacy” work. The many sessions that saw Hansing scrutinising Paul’s speeches were justified by the artist’s need to ‘internalise” the character of Paul.

Upon seeing a working sketch of himself, Paul is said to have uttered the cryptic comment: “One almost needs a new philosophy to grasp the meaning of this in its context.” [Emphasis added.]

The first version of the painting is made from two separate pieces of canvas: one above and one below. The bottom canvas is horizontal and the top one is vertical – which is like an inverted cross when you come to think of it.

Two vertical white blocks – red in the second painting – on either side of the piece are in fact said to represent an inverted cross – the Petrus cross – according to the artist, ostensibly calling to mind the martyrdom of the first Pontiff.

According to Hansing, his trademark blue colour represented “mystical depth” and was more prominent in the second painting. He referred to the use of red as denoting “blood circulation,” and indeed, much of the red in Hansing’s works resembles blood either dripping or in pools.

In the top of the internal space of the real dome, which was designed by Michelangelo, we can find the image of God the Father. In Hansing’s version, God has been replaced by a mere swirl, which could also be interpreted as an All-Seeing Eye, from which emanates a beam of light.

Hansing replaced God the Father
with this ambiguous symbol

A ray of light proceeding from beneath this All-Seeing Eye, seems to pierce the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, then continue vertically downwards right through the person of the Pope. Blood appears to drip down this central axis, through Paul and merging with his own grotesque hands that grasp a threatening dagger-like implement.

A second painting was begun after Fr Macchi and Hansing’s poet friend, Stefan Andrew, suggested to him that the first work was too small. The second work contains a few changes: more “Hansing Blue” is incorporated and the pillars are emphasised. The Pope’s face is “more humble” and the phrase, Pro hominibus constitutus, meaning ‘appointed for service to the people’ – is written in the lower right hand corner. Surprisingly, this motto is also found on Cardinal Frings’ Coat of Arms.

The finished work was a massive 21.6 m x 3.6m (71ft by 12 ft) and was presented to the Pope in 1972.

Cardinal Fring’s Coat of Arms.
Detail from the painting.
No, I can’t read it either.

In his speech at the time the second painting was presented to the Pope, Bishop Wilhem Cleven referred to John’s Gospel, stating “The time comes when someone else girds you and leads you where you do not want to go.” (John. 21:17).

When he saw the finished second portrait, he remarked that the it was “very useful” to make an “act of reflection’ in studying the painting. The artist then went on to make seven screen prints of the portrait, apparently at the behest of Paul, in order that they may be sources of “acts of reflection.”

Interpretation

The definitive explanation of the Masonic symbols found in the work was written by researcher and author, Craig Heimbichner, who detected, among other symbols, the three pillars of Masonry, inverted crosses, pentagrams, and at least one square and compass. Heimbichner also explains that the initiation rite of the 30th degree Mason, the Kadosh Degree, involves thrusting a dagger into the papal tiara. He believes the pope is represented as holding that dagger.

It is certainly true that Paul VI surrendered the Papal Tiara at the start of his pontificate. Could his devastating reforms and the emptying of papal authority on his watch also be considered as “killing” the papacy?

I am not normally given to making wild speculations on subjects that are outside my competency. However, this case is an exception. While we will never know the true meaning of this mysterious episode, or of the paintings themselves, I proffer the following hypothesis. You may like to think of it as fan-fiction:

Paul is represented as both victim and perpetrator in Hansing’s portrait: this is an image of his character and of his pontificate…..

Prior to the conclave, the blackmailable Montini promised his Progressive/Masonic coalition supporters that he would allow sweeping reforms once he was elected Pope. As Pope Paul VI, he went along with changes to the Mass, leaving details to the Freemason Bugnini, and approved the other innovations introduced during and after the Council.

Although the Council reaffirmed the Church’s teaching on birth control, Cardinal Frings later challenged Paul to review the that stance, leading Paul to establish a commission to look into the matter. The commission returned to Paul with their conclusion: birth control should be allowed.

This was a bridge too far for Paul. Already cracks were appearing as the Council’s love-fest aura began to wear off. The unity and renewal Paul had, far too optimistically, hoped for had not eventuated, and his latitude in doctrinal matters was being exploited by those closest to him.

Paul decided to risk the ire of the Masonic brotherhood, stand his ground and defend the Church’s teaching in Humanae Vitae, which was released it in 1968.

Frings and the Masonic forces he represented were furious. Paul needed to be reigned in but they knew him to be pliable and timid. (“Begging” and “pleading”, as Hansing said.) They decided to send him a warning – of the most severe kind. Hansing was conscripted to deliver the message on behalf of the Lodge.

Hansing is moved onsite although he didn’t really need to sketch Paul: he already had chosen the photograph taken in Jerusalem as a model – an indication, perhaps, that the Ecclesiastical Lodge that commissioned him had powerful Jewish connections. He sat in on thirteen of Paul’s Audiences merely to intimidate him.

The pressure mounted and Paul began to waver. He was shown a working sketch of himself and mused aloud: “One almost needs a new philosophy to grasp the meaning of this in its context.” Perhaps that “new philosophy” was something antithetical to Catholic teaching to which Paul had ambivalently subscribed.

Once the first painting was finished, the seriousness of the threat became even more apparent. The looming threat of violence overwhelmed him and Paul sensed that his life may be in danger. The angles of the painting resembled an axe cleaving his skull in two but also represented to him his double-mindedness.

He knew he was under pressure to fulfil the ancient decrees of Masonry and demolish Catholicism, as represented by the weapon in his bloody hands, and as symbolised in the stabbing of the Papal Tiara.

Paul finally relented and resigned himself to following the Masonic programme for the rest of his pontificate. He then informed the Lodge.

A second painting was commissioned and the Pope was now represented with a “more humble” countenance. The pillars of Masonry were emphasised, representing Paul’s triumph of “reason” over “superstition”. Bishop Cleven was on hand to remind Paul that someone else “girded him and led him where he does not want to go.” (As if he needed the reminder)

A humbled Paul then acknowledged that his “acts of reflection” led him to make the right decision. To prevent a relapse, the Frings-led Lodge commissioned seven prints of the portrait – one for each day of the week.

Paul later had a crisis of conscience (as did Frings). He was forced to confront the implications of his progressive reforms as the Church continued to implode and he grieved that no one anywhere on the Catholic spectrum respected him.

When he tried to impose his papal authority, the Lodge reacted swiftly: a staged attempt was made on his life when he visited the Philippines in 1975. Macchi and Marcinkus “saved his life,” and Paul was again beholden to the Masonic forces that elected him.

Paul wavered again, trying to warn Catholics of the Pandora’s Box that had been unleashed by the Council. His furious minders began to lose their patience. It was time for a showdown.

When Paul again publicly held his ground on the Church’s approach to sexuality morality, it was the last straw for the Ecclesiastical Masons. In 1976, a campaign was orchestrated to suggest that the Pope had a very dark secret: that he was a homosexual. Paul was crushed and defeated; he never issued another encyclical and openly expressed his regret for the direction taken by the Council, never admitting his part, overwhelmed as he was by the pressure that had been brought to bear on him.

No wonder Paul whispered to his biographers, “You will crucify me.”

Just to complete the flight of fantasy, on the left is a diagram commonly used in Gnostic Judaism, or Kabbalah.

It is interesting to note how many points line up with Paul’s “portraits.”

SOURCES:

Hieronymopolis.wordpress.com

Novus Ordo Watch

wilfried-hansmann.de

Ernst Guenter Hansing

Even Cardinal Pell has swallowed the Lie

A few days ago, I reported on a new ecumenical initiative that is going ahead with the apparent support of the Vatican and which relies on the conciliar mistruth (heresy) that the three monotheistic religions worship the same God. This is the idea that religions who reject the Trinity and specifically reject the Redeemer, Our Lord Jesus Christ, are on their “own path” to heaven. Is this a parallel path?

Parallel universe is more like it.

This week, in one of his many interviews, Australia’s Cardinal Pell gave his support to the same error. The interview was for the occasion of the Cardinal’s 80th birthday and touched on his time spent in prison for a crime he did not commit. The interviewer asked the Cardinal,

“In your diary, you say that you often listened to the prayers of Muslim detainees from your cell. What did it feel like to pray while listening to those prayers?”

To this, Cardinal Pell answered,

“For me there is only one God, we are monotheists. The theological conceptions of Christians and Muslims are obviously different, but we all pray in different ways to the same God. There is no God of Muslims, Christians or other religions, there is only one God.”

Cardinal Pell to Fabio Colagrande, of Vatican News, June 8, 2021

Forget for a moment that the good Cardinal should not merely give his opinion, and that he has a responsibility to state clearly the doctrine of the Church he represents. That is bad enough. But the comments themselves show a teaching that was entirely new at the time of the Second Vatican Council and which has come to be seen as Magisterial.

While of course it is true that there is only one God – Scripture tells us that all other gods are in fact, demons – the Cardinal is quite wrong in stating that the monotheistic religions worship the same God. He himself seemed to reject that idea in the past. For example, in 2006, the Cardinal pointed out that Catholics, Christians and Muslims do not universally believe that they worship the same God.

He said that “It is difficult to recognise the God of the New Testament in the God of the Koran, and two very different concepts of the human person have emerged from the Christian and Muslim understandings of God.”

Has the Cardinal come to change his position? It certainly would appear so. Has the Pope’s Abu-Dhabi project, that great triumph of Freemasonic indifferentism, influenced the Cardinal so much so he renounces the Church’s consistent teaching on this fundamental truth? I certainly hope this is not the case.

Please note that I do not in any way suggest that the good Cardinal is connected in any way with Freemasonry – other than that he has almost undoubtedly been the victim of its assaults over the years.

I will be most upset – perhaps litigiously so – if anyone accuses me of saying such a thing.

I draw attention to his comments only to show how prevalent religious indifferentism is today, even in conservative circles. This indifferentism has its roots in Freemasonry and has long been one of its goals.

Before the Council, this was the constant teaching of the Church, and the clergy warned of the dangers of religious indifferentism. Ideas like those put forward in the 19th Century by the Freemasonic occultist, Éliphas Lévi, who hoped for a Catholic Church that allowed Jews and Muslims to worship within Her without a renunciation of their own faith, were condemned. The errors were clearly exposed for all the faithful.

Similarly, academics like Hilaire Belloc warned of the heresy implicit in Islam, explaining the movement began as a corruption of Christianity from which Mohammed excised all that is supernatural from and then taught an erroneous, oversimplified doctrine.

Less than a hundred years later, this error was to find itself being promulgated by the Church Herself, in such documents as Lumen Gentium, which states that Muslims and Catholics worship the same God.

Hence a grave error has been sown in the fabric of the Church – a great contradiction that exhibits the hallmarks of a hermeneutic of discontinuity.

As Bishop Schneider remarked when speaking on this topic in his book, Christus Vincit, “We have to call all non-Christians to the one true path to God., which is the Catholic Church. The Apostles and the entire Church taught this for two thousand years. The Church could not err for two thousand years.” (p 97.)

Bishop Schneider is, however, not one to ignore or condemn individual members of other faiths. As he stated in Christus Vincit, he has good relations with Muslims in Kazakhstan and has, at times, joined in efforts with members of the Jewish faith. He is not xenophobic, but neither does he shy away from the truth that someone who rejects the Trinitarian God of Christians does not pray to that God, but to another of their own making.

A brief look at some of the Church Fathers will further illustrate the traditional Catholic view:

St Augustine: “This heresy affirms that all heretics are on the right path and that al teach the truth. This is so monstrous an absurdity that it seems to me to be incredible.”

Pope Pius VII: “By the fact that the indiscriminate freedom of all forms of worship is proclaimed, truth is confused with error, and the Holy and Immaculate Spouse of Christ is placed on the same level as heretical sects…” – Post Tam Diuturnas

Pope Gregory XVI: “…. those who pretend that the way to [eternal] beatitude starts with any religion at all should be afraid and should seriously think over the fact that, according to the testimony of the Saviour Himself, they are against Christ, because they are not for Christ, and that they are miserably scattering because they are not gathering with Him…” – Mirari Vos

It is to be hoped that Cardinal Pell and other conservative, yet sadly quite Modernist, clergymen wake up to the errors that were promulgated by Vatican II and begin to teach the Faith in its entirely and totally in accordance with tradition. Perhaps then, these well-meaning but deluded men will pray with St Celestine:

Pray that the Faith may be granted to infidels, that idolators may be delivered from the errors of impiety, that the light of truth may be visible to Jews….

St Celestine, Council of Ephesus. 431

Francis Preaches on Corpus Christi but fails to mention the Real Presence

Vatican News reported on the homily given by Pope Francis at Sunday’s Mass for the Feast of Corpus Christi. But instead of preaching on the Real Presence of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ, the pontiff played down the true meaning of the Eucharist.

While he mentioned the “Food and Drink of eternal life” it was lost in all the talk of encounter, community and welcoming. Continuing with what may be considered a theme of this pontificate, Pope Francis said that “a Church of the pure and perfect is a room with no place for anyone.” These are such strange words, as those who receive Our Lord worthily are no strangers to the Sacrament of Confession and thus do not in any way think of themselves as “pure” or “perfect.”

By contrast, the Sacrificial Victim of the Mass, Our Lord Himself, is the pure and perfect offering to God the Father.

Mass was offered at a side altar in St. Peter’s, rather than at the main altar, which apparently has not been used since the closing Mass of the Amazon Synod in 2019. It was at that Mass that a bowl containing earth and plants, not unlike an offering made to the demon Pachamama, was placed on the altar, in violation of Liturgical rubrics.

As is often the case with this Pope, he offered some words that would become very meaningful if placed in the context for which they were meant. He spoke of our need to be receptive to God’s presence, and of how the world becomes a better place when we go out and share what we have received in Mass. He vaguely mentioned God’s presence and Jesus’ sacrifice, but not in a way that would be offensive to a Protestant’s ears.

What Pope Francis did not explain clearly and precisely is the reality that Jesus’ Sacrifice on the Cross is perpetuated at each Mass, and that the Sacred Host is the True Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord.

This is the message that the world most needs to hear: that Jesus is alive and among us in every tabernacle of every Catholic Church in the world.

What Modernists fail to see is that Jesus is not present – in the Eucharistic sense – in meetings between Catholics and Protestants or in a social gathering of the poor and marginalised or in a simple hut in the Amazon. He is present, that is true, but not in His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, as He is in the Blessed Sacrament.

Do Modernists not realise that Jesus Christ comes to all people – to rich capitalists, to “rigid” Traditionalists, to “clericalist” priests, whose only crime is their orthodoxy – yes, He brings His blessings and graces to all those classes and to anyone who is in a state of grace.

As the Pope sat (he alone did not kneel at the sight of the Lord exposed in the Monstrance) he looked unwell and unhappy, as he contemplated …… we shall never know.

Let us hope and pray that one day before he dies – and that day cannot be too far in the future – this Pope will repent of his grievous sins against Holy Mother Church, reject his Masonic agenda and implore God’s mercy for himself and for his corrupt hierarchy.

Catholics are encouraged to appreciate the “internal logic” of Islam

Vatican News this week published a story on a new ecumenical initiative designed to help Catholics find “a new understanding of their faith by taking Muslim questions seriously.” One wonders why the old method of teaching Catholics their catechism was found to be wanting. 

“Reasons for our Hope” is a joint project of the Cardinal Angelo Scola’s Oasis International Foundation and the McGrath Institute. 

The current phase of this Islamic-Catholic dialogue involves the release of three videos, designed to teach Moslems and Christians to appreciate the Internal coherence of each others’ faiths. The videos are animated and very simplistic – even insultingly so – distilling two thousand years of Catholic teaching into a feel-good fairy-tale and completely ignoring Islam’s 14 centtury-old animosity and blasphemy toward the Person of Jesus Christ.

The video entitled, “Jesus in the Bible and in the Qur’an” looks at similarities=es and differences between the two holy books’ approaches to Jesus Christ. Nowhere is it mentioned that Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, not that He Himself made that claim. Instead, the presentation focuses on the way both faiths present Jesus as a prophet who performed miracles.

A second video, “Reasons for our Hope” features images that look eerily like the temples planned for the Pope’s Abrahamic House project. “Parallel universes of meaning, each governed by its own law”

“Many prophets, one message.” – to remind the people to worship God. 

This video inches a little closer to the truth about Jesus, saying that His identification with “Emmanuel – God-With-us” is “inconceivable” to Moslems. No problem, the video purrs, all that is necessary is to “journey into another universe of meaning” aka the Christian Bible, where an alternative, internally coherent Truth is taught.

The narrator then males the extraordinarily false claim that “Bible is the story of God’s search for humanity.”

The final episode, “The Place of Jesus in the Bible”, also fails to mention the Trinity and the fact that Jesus is more than the Messiah, but is the only-begotten Son of God. The video closes with the hope that “ … with a generous heart, everyone can see coherence and beauty in the universe of the Qur’an and of the Bible. With this as a beginning, fraternity and friendship are the next steps.”

Cardinal Scola was part of the Nouvelle Théologie of the Conciliar years, and contributed to the publication, “Communio” along with Henri de Lubac, Hans Urs von Balthasar and then-Fr Ratzinger. Like many proponents of the “New Theology”, Scola was relatively orthodox in matters such as the indissolubility of marriage, non-reception of Communion for those in irregular marriages and the existence of the devil. He even defended the traditional Mass when he became Archbishop of Milan in 2017. However, one area in which the “New Theology” went dangerously wrong was in its attitude toward ecumenism.

Cardinal Scola founded the Oasis International Foundation in 20014. Typical of projects attempting to find a “third way” and “common ground”, the Foundation omits much of the truth about Catholicism and the Person of Jesus Christ while glossing over fundamental problems with Islam.

A quote from Cardinal Scola on the Oasis website states that the Christian faith recognises that non-Christian cultures are “inalienable and intrinsic dimensions of its own nature.”

The website features  this logo from the Pope’s trip to Egypt several years ago. It looks less like an image of Catholicism and more like the emblem for a One World Religion.

Collaborating with the Cardinal’s Oasis Foundation is the McGrath Institute for Church Life. A look at the McGrath Institute’s History and Mission page proves quite illuminating and the “Origins” section tells you all you need to know about this outfit. The organisation began as The Centre for Pastoral and Social Ministry, under the guidance of the late Monsignor John Egan, and the website cites his “Chicago-based urban ministry projects.” If that rings an alarm bell, it should – Monsignor Egan was a protege of Saul Alinsky, the communist agitator who actively sought out members of the Catholic hierarchy to collaborate with during the 1940’s.

The videos’ New Age background music and fluid graphics cause one to wonder what kind of subliminal message may be presented to the unwary viewer. 

At a time when the world needs more than ever to hear the saving message of the Gospels, in its pure and unadulterated form, it is more than irresponsible for members of the Church to suggest a “deeper look’ at Islam. However, if one is committed to promulgating a Freemasonic, indifferentist religion, then a project like this ticks all the boxes.

Deism, Esotericism and Gnosis in the Masonic Constitutions of 1723

FROM: CORRISPONDENZA ROMANA by Fr Paolo Siano

Published May, 2020. (Automatic online translation from Italian)

1723 is the year of the first Constitutions of the new Grand Lodge of London (later of England ) founded in 1717. The author is the Presbyterian pastor and Master Mason James Anderson (1679-1739). By now modern Freemasonry, that of the “Modern” Freemasons, no longer builds churches, but wants to rebuild Man, Society, social and religious relations.

In The Constitutions of the Free-Masons (London 1723), instead of the Old Charges , or Ancient Duties (for which cf. article here ), we find new Duties (“Charges”: Pp. 49-56), still valid in Freemasonry, for example in the Grand Orient of Italy from which I draw the Italian translation (GOI, Antichi Duty – Constitution – Regulation , Rome 2018) of some passages from the 1723 text.

New duties establish in Title I ( The Constitutions , p.50) that Freemasons are henceforth bound ” to that Religion in which all men agree, leaving them their particular opinions; that is, to be good and sincere men, or men of honor and honesty“.

In Title VI, 2 it is written that Freemasons belong to the aforementioned Universal Religion (“as Masons, of the Catholick Religion above mention’d “: p.54; catholic means universal). This religion, with which Freemasonry unites men of all religions or religious confessions (in an alchemical coincidentia oppositorum ), is not at all the Catholic Christian religion ( as, instead, some Catholic Freemasons of the pro-English area affirm ), but it is a natural, anthropocentric and rationalist religiosity that relegates the dogmas to mere opinions. It is Deism, as also admitted by English Freemasons [ AQC 78 (1965), pp.50-51.55].

Historian David Stevenson notes that Anderson, as pastor, hates Catholics and Deists in his sermons, but writing as a Freemason the Constitutions also includes Deism in the Masonic Universal Religion (cf. Heredom, vol. 10/2002, Scottish Rite Research Society , Washington DC , USA, pp. 97,115-116,119-121,127; p.136 note70).

There’s more: I discovered that even in the Constitutions of 1723 there are traces of Esotericism and Gnosis. Here they are in summary. On the cover or frontispiece there is the image of Phoebus-Apollo, the shining sun-god who, young and naked, travels the sky with his chariot. Phoebus, god of divination, gives life and death (alchemical death-rebirth?), Loves both Daphne and Giacinto (divine, initiatory bisexuality?). The image of the god Phoebus, together with that of the Cainite Tubalcain, is already in an alchemical booklet printed in Florence in the 14th century (cf. A Libretto di Alchemy engraved on lead sheets in the 14th century… , Città di Castello 1910, pp. 27.30). Again on the title page of the Constitutions, under the title there is a bird that seems to resemble the ibis, the symbol of Hermes Trismegistus.

I discovered that, in the seventeenth century, in London, in the Devil’s Tavern, in a room called the Oracle of Apollo, the Apollo Club met: a literary club that also recited odes to the Devil. In the Devil’s Tavern there was also a libertine and blasphemous circle, the Hell-Fire-Club to which belonged the Duke of Wharton, Freemason, depicted in the Constitutions of 1723 as newly elected Grand Master!

From 1722 in the Devil’s Tavern a lodge met that took that name, “Devil”. In the “Apollo” of the Devil’s Tavern, from 1725 to 1767, the Grand Lodge of London held at least 75 meetings (cf.The New England Freemason, N° 12, pp.543-544; AQC 11 (1898), p.30; cf. G. Oliver, in W. Hutchinson, Spirit of Masonry, 1843, p.12).

In the historical-legendary part of the Constitutions of 1723 the 4 sons of Lamech, Cainites, do not have a prominent position as in the previous Old Charges of the XV-XVIII centuries. Now it is God who directly transmits the Art / Science of Geometry / Masonry to Adam and these then to his sons Cain and Seth. Abel is not mentioned (pp. 1-2). Anderson does not say that, even according to the Jewish Kabbalah, God passed on the Secrets of the Kabbalah to Adam.

In fact, modern Freemasonry presents itself as an initiatory society and as a spiritual art that binds the Initiates to each other and to the Divine. In a hymn attached to the Constitutions , Freemasonry is defined as divine art revealed by Heaven ( “Craft divine!… From Heav’n reveal’d“: P. 83). Even in Anderson’s Constitutions, Cain figures as the first Mason who builds a city.

Anderson writes that Cain is the Prince of one half of humanity and his posterity has imitated his royal example in improving Science and Masonry (p. 2). Then, in a note, the descendants of Cain (Tubalcain, Jabal…) are credited with the invention of metalworking, architecture and other arts (p. 2). Among the keepers of the Masonry, Nimrod, king of Babylon, is also praised; in footnote Anderson specifies that Nimrod means Rebel and that he was revered as Baal and Bacchus (p. 4).

Anderson mentions the wise men of the Chaldeans, the “Magi,” – hence the term: magic, and the priests of ancient Egypt as custodians and transmitters of Masonry; he specifies that about the Chaldeans, the Magi, Hiram Abiff and Moses, it is necessary to speak only in a constituted Lodge! Another keeper of the Muratoria is Cam (“Ham”), one of Noah’s sons. Pythagoras and Euclid are also among the keepers of the Masonry (cf. pp. 4-5, 8, 16, 20-21). It is good to know that in magical literature, at least since the sixteenth century, Cam is associated with black magic (cf. BE Jones, Freemasons’ Guide and Compendium , London 1950, p. 314).

In the Constitutions, Anderson praises the architect, Vitruvius, (p.25) and affirms that in times of ignorance geometry was considered to be the evocation of spirits (p. 36, note *). The scholar, Frances Yates, (1899-1981) sees a similarity between these statements by Anderson and what the magician, John Dee, (1527-1608) wrote in his preface to Euclid’s Mathematics: Dee praised Vitruvius and called out those who accused him of evoking spirits (The Rosicrucian Enlightenment, London – New York 2002, pp. 271-272). Scholar Susann Mitchell Summers found that Anderson possessed the writings of John Dee and other wizards and occultists (cf. The Square , December 2018, Addlestone, UK, p. 18).

In the Constitutions 1723 there is mention of the ” shining and free Genius ” of the Freemasons, then in one of the songs in the appendix to the Constitutions the powerful Genius of the Upper Lodge is praised (” The Mighty Genius of the lofty Lodge “: p.80). Later in the title page of the Constitutions of 1784 will appear ” the Genius of Masonry “, a winged angel bearing light (a lucifer), defined as she (“She”). Initiatory androgyny? In Title II of Masonic Duties , Anderson writes that even if a Mason commits a crime against the State, he cannot be expelled from the Lodge and maintains an irrevocable bond (“indefeasible “), or indelible, with the Lodge (p. 50)

Also interesting is Anderson’s 1738 New Book of Constitutions approved by the Grand Lodge of London at the Devil’s Tavern . After Anderson’s preface, there is the image of a seated woman, surrounded by various objects including the Caduceus of Mercury (p. X), that is the winged staff with two entwined snakes, symbol of Hermes Trismegistus. In the appendix to The New Book of Constitutions there is a pamphlet from 1730, A Defense of Masonry , in which the rites and principles of Freemasonry are linked to those of ancient pagan, Egyptian, Pythagorean, Druid, Qabalist Mysteries (pp. 216- 226).

In 1739 a posthumous, non-Masonic work by Anderson, ” News from Elysium: or Dialogues of the Dead ” was published in two volumes in London . On the title page of both volumes stands the figure of Hermes Trismegistus flying in the sky and carrying his Caduceus (cf. AQC 18 (1905) pp. 34-37). In the second image Hermes / Mercury appears to have female breasts. Androgyny? 

Rapprochement from 2017

FROM KATHOLISCHES – NOVEMBER 2017

In 2017 the Masonic lodges will celebrate their 300th anniversary. Since 1717 the relationship between Lodge and Church has been rife with tension and conflict. In Syracuse there is a new attempt at an understanding with a spectacular aspect: For the first time a Catholic bishop takes part in a public box event and will discuss with the master of the chair. Some insights into the background of a controversial experiment.

Truth and the search for truth

For the Catholic Church the prescribed relativism and the factually practiced syncretism of the Lodge Brothers are incompatible with the truth of reality revealed by God. The lodges reject this revelation as a truth of faith. The orientation of the lodges is not only deistic, agnostic or atheistic, depending on obedience, but was from the beginning significantly shaped by the esoteric “search” for a “different” truth than the Christian one. In the Catholic states the lodges saw and organized themselves as direct opponents of the church. Following their relativistic credo, they want to eliminate the public influence of the church, which is why Freemasonry has always been attached to a striving for power. This battle has been raging for three centuries.

The history of the lodges, however, also knows the phenomenon of church representatives who allowed themselves to be initiated and thus became apostates according to the church’s understanding. Your covert work in the church as “agents of the lodges” is still awaiting investigation. A particularly striking example is the magnificent Benedictine Abbey of Melk on the Danube. At the end of the 18th century there was not only a monk’s convent in the monastery, but also a lodge. A part of the monks belonged to her and thus formed a convention of the “initiates” in the convent.

The status as a secret society, to which the lodges cling to this day, allows the abbreviated brothers undetected to infiltrate other organizations, parties and churches and to create an invisible network.

“Relaxation Exercises” after the Council

One consequence of the Second Vatican Council it was that lodge-friendly church districts ventured with newfound confidence from obscurity. The 1970s were marked by efforts, also in the German-speaking area, to bring about a “reconciliation” between lodge and church. Faithful bishops in the countries and the election of Pope John Paul II put an end to these attempts in the early 1980s.

Lists of alleged or actual church representatives, including cardinals, who are said to be lodge members, circulate repeatedly. The sociologist of religion, Massimo Introvigne, warned against false suspicions and in May 2013 formulated a sure way to clarify the suspicion of lodge membership:

“The crucial core of Masonic ideology is relativism, with all the related political implications, which often lead Masonic obedience to promote laws to legalize abortion, euthanasia, and gay associations. So if you hear about a Catholic church representative or politician saying that he is a Freemason, the question should be: does he represent relativistic ideas? Is he an abortion advocate? Is he in favor of euthanasia or the legal recognition of gay partnerships?

If the answer is ‘yes’, then he is – according to the definition used by the current Grand Master of the Grand Orient of Italy – a ‘Freemason without an apron’, a companion of Freemasonry, and the question of whether he has an official membership card or not is then only secondary.

If the answer is ‘no’ and the church official or Catholic politician openly opposes relativism and its consequences, then there is good reason to conclude that the allegations are defamatory. “

New signals of rapprochement

Although Freemasonry failed 35 years ago in its attempt to be recognized by the Church, the Lodge Brothers have neither given up their fight for repression against the Church, nor have they tried to make them spiritually submissive to their thinking. Since Pope Francis was elected, the curtailed or unvarnished “brothers” believe they see a new opportunity outside and inside the Church .

Among the signals that point in this direction include not only praise of the pope from Latin America, but also the sensational letter from Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi to the ” Brethren“.

The latest example is a discussion meeting of the Masonic Grand Orient of Italy , to be held at Syracuse next November 12 in the cathedral square. The invitations show Jesus Christ with a compass in hand, a typical Masonic instrument. The circle is one of the “three great lights” of Masonic symbolism, which lies on the altar in the lodge temples.

The theme of the event is: “ Church and Freemasonry – so close, so far? “The portrayal of Jesus is part of the title picture showing the creation of the world. The representation has nothing to do with the Lodge Brothers and their world of ideas. It was created around 1220, 500 years before Freemasonry was founded. The panel discussion is part of the 300-year-anniversary celebrations of the Grand Orient.

The purpose of the event is to present an understanding between lodge and church as possible. It gives the impression of a compatibility that the Church has rejected for 300 years.

Despite the provocative image and an even more provocative title, a Catholic bishop will take part in the discussion. Msgr. Antonio Staglianò, Bishop of Noto and Msgr. Maurizio Aliotta from the Archdiocese of Syracuse will discuss with two Honorary Grand Masters of the Greater Orient, Santi Fedele and Sergio Rosso. The host is the Master of the Chair of Syracuse, Alessandro Spicuglia.

“Communitarianism” as common ground?

Nuova Bussola Quotidiana (NBQ) reports that there are violent protests from devout Catholics against the event. People ask the Archdiocese of Syracuse what this “hug” is about with an organization condemned by the Church.

“It’s about an organization that in southern Italy has always had to do with (often occult) power and always had an esoteric streak between rites and brotherhood that was never really revealed.”

The Catholic Internet newspaper asked Bishop Staglianò what his participation was about. The bishop referred to the spectacular and equally controversial letter from Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi to the “Brothers Freemasons”. The chairman of the Pontifical Council for Culture had “clearly shown” that there could be similarities between the Church and Loge, namely the “communitarianism”. Bishop Staglianò said:

“I assume that he meant the opposition to unbridled individualism, anti-materialism, a certain idea of spirituality and finally also the philanthropy, that is, the solidary aspect.”

However, the Church gave a negative answer to all these alleged “similarities”, which not least had to do with the “danger of a relativistic and deistic methodology”, according to NBQ, which the lodges are trying to do.

“Hug process in progress”

“The reality is that there is a hugging process going on today,” NBQ said. The most recent example: On the discussion in Syracuse, there appeared in the daily newspaper of the Italian Bishops Conference an article by the priest Ennio Stamile, who argued for the “dialogue” with the Freemasons. Bishop Staglianò was one of his theology professors, the priest defends the bishop’s participation. Stamile also refers to Pope Francis, who called for a dialogue “with everyone, no one excluded”.

The priest accuses the critics of rapprochement as “ignorant” and “superficial” because they “have no idea” about Freemasonry. The claim that the lodges are a “power lobby” is a fairy tale that must finally “disappear”.

Fr Ennio Stamile is one of the most famous priests in southern Italy. He is chairman of the Libera Calabria (Free Calabria) association, an umbrella organization “against the Mafia”. The association proves to be a firmly integrated part of the political left through language, symbols, actionism and contacts, and in any case it is fully recognized by this side. Stamile comes from the circle of Don Ciotti, the founder of the association, whom Pope Francis kissed on the hand in March 2014.

The union has received several hundred hectares of agricultural land by the state, confiscated from the members of the ‘Ndrangheta. The ‘Ndrangheta is the group of organized crime in Calabria and the Mafia in Sicily is comparable. The association runs farms on these areas with those who have been released from prison, former drug addicts, immigrants and those who have dropped out of the Mafia.

Lodge and Mafia?

Don Stamile’s request to speak is important not only because of his anti-Mafia reputation. His partisanship for the dialogue with the lodge is interesting. More information could explain this and open the door to a remarkable circular if the entanglement with organized crime – mafia and lodge are “occult” powers, as it has already been said – may even be a regional problem.

Since the 1960s there have been indications that mafia bosses have entered the lodges. Within the Calabrian mafia, the ‘Ndrangheta, there were violent conflicts about it. The initiative for this cooperation seems to go back to Gioa Tauro’s boss, Girolamo Piromalli (1918–1979).

Since then, investigative files by the public prosecutor have repeatedly referred to a “mass mafia”, a merger of Freemasonry and mafia into a Masonic mafia. 2014 protocol extracts were the interrogation of the former Grand Master of the Grand Orient of Italy, Giuliano Di Bernardo (1990-1993), known. Di Bernardo left the Grand Orient in the wake of the scandal surrounding the mysterious Propaganda Due Lodge (P2). Today he is Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Italy . According to the data Di Bernardo early 90s were 28 of 32 Calabrian boxes from , ‘Ndrangheta has been inspected.

In 2007 mafia boss Sebastiano Altomonte said in a conversation with his wife that had been recorded by the police through acoustic room surveillance:

“There is one you know about and one you don’t know about. There is the visible and the invisible that nobody knows about, except the invisible. “

The statement has been associated with the “Santa” – the group created by Girolamo Piromalli at the highest management level; the ‘Ndrangheta , whose members are all members of Freemasonry. However, this thesis has not yet been confirmed in a court-relevant manner.

In a conversation between mafia boss Pantaleone Mancuso, overheard by the police in 2013, said during a walk:

“The ‘Ndrangheta no longer exists… It once existed. Today ‘Ndrangheta is part of Freemasonry … Let’s put it this way: It is under Freemasonry but has the same rules! … The ‘Ndrangheta no longer exists, all that remains are Freemasonry and the four idiots who still believe in the’ Ndrangheta. “

Against this background, the words of Don Ennio Stamile may have a slightly different meaning, who mentions a connection between Mafia and Freemasonry in his statement, but dismisses it as an invention and attempt at disinformation by people who want to become something without “merits and competencies” and by to whom the Church is not free either.

But it is also a fact that the former President of the Higher Regional Court of Catanzaro (Calabria) and Honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy, Giuseppe Tuccio, has to answer in court for membership of the Mafia. It was only in 2016 that Tuccio, who was not unknown to Libera Calabria , published a book about the fight against the Mafia. “The Piromalli had judge Tuccio, a Freemason, in their hands,” a key witness had testified in a court case. Even in the wheels of justice of senior judges came in the wake of anti-mafia Operation Gotha .

Bishop Staglianò: Hans Küng and “why I talk to the Freemasons”

But back to the discussion event in Syracuse. Bishop Staglianò justifies his participation with a statement from Pope John XXIII: “Let us look more for what unites us than what divides us.” Despite all condemnations by the Church, especially Leo XIII. With the encyclical Humanum genus and the letter Inimica vis , or the declaration of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of 1983, the bishop sees no problem in “having a dialogue with the lodge brothers, for example when these Freemasons should organize themselves to fight against injustice “. It should be examined where one can act together for the “common good”.

The question remains, according to NBQ, what “common good” means from a Catholic point of view and what it means, however, from the point of view of Freemasonry. Bishop Staglianò admitted that he was not “competent” to answer this question. Literally he let it be known:

“Look, I don’t know anything about Freemasonry. I am in the process of reading up, starting with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declaration [from 1983]. I think that one can have no other opinion on the condemnation of the Masonic theses. I will say more: it is the first time that I have found myself in the situation of speaking to Freemasons. I think that I will begin my remarks with the text by Hans Küng on the ‘Magic Flute’ by Mozart, who was both a Freemason and a Christian. But we cannot ignore the church at the time of the genius from Salzburg as a bureaucratic institution. Not true?”

Criticism of the “integralist” dialogue

NBQ asks whether it is “credible” when a recognized theologian and bishop like Staglianò describes himself as “not competent”. The bishop’s statement could also be seen as a provocation, since he seems to be saying one thing in a few sentences but seem to mean the opposite.

When asked about the Freemason’s invitation with the representation of Jesus Christ, the bishop said that this “does not scandalize” him:

“Didn’t Arius also attribute the cosmogonic traits of a demiurge to Jesus? If Arius made a mistake, it was – if he did – that he did not ascribe God’s features to the demiurge. “

And further:

“I will go like Jesus to the tax collectors and prostitutes and proclaim Christ. The Freemasons will then determine how close or how far they are to this proclamation. “

Bishop Staglianò condescendingly described criticism of the dialogue with the Freemasons as “stupid, superficial and integralistic”. He used one of those “magical” terms with which progressive church circles bludgeon devout Catholics. Ultimately, the bishop insulted the popes of the past 300 years, who condemned Freemasonry, as “stupid, superficial and integralist”. Leo XIII. wrote in Humanum genus :

“The sect is, according to its whole being and its innermost nature, corruption and vice; therefore it is not allowed to join her and to be of any help. “

Finally, Bishop Staglianò also refers to Pope Francis, who urged to go to the “existential fringes”, “and Freemasonry seems to be one”.

Is the Church still equipped for “dialogue” with Freemasonry?

The question that remains, according to NBQ, goes beyond Bishop Staglianò. In the past few years the church has tried to hardly speak about the Freemasons anymore. The intellectual and scientific preoccupation with the lodges at the relevant academies, institutes and faculties had almost completely come to a standstill. There are hardly any more coherent and thorough studies on the subject. The declaration by Paolo Maria Siano, of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, form a remarkable exception.

It is almost as if one does not want to be labeled with the stigma of a “conspiracy theorist”. However, the boxes are a reality, as the celebrations show. Other church districts have elevated dialogue to the “highest dogma” in which they believe, which is why any form of exclusion is frowned upon – at least any form contrary to the spirit of the times. The attempt at a more or less open distancing from the past with its condemnations of Freemasonry is obvious. This raises the question of “how the Church wants to meet Freemasonry, since its younger representatives have hardly any knowledge of the Lodge and reflexively tend to dismiss criticism of it as a“ yesterday’s conspiracy theory ”of an“ integralism ”that has been overcome.

The signals for a new “dialogue” are increasing, although the church staff seem less and less prepared for it. Or is the willingness to dialogue growing parallel to the loss of knowledge?

Dazu NBQ:

“Dialogue is not a gospel term. Does the church want to use the excuse of dialogue – after the radicals, the Protestants, the anti-clerical atheists and the plutocratic elites – to break the last taboo that lodges, which were once enemies, are now only ‘different’? “

Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: Wikicommons / Grande Oriente d’Italia (Screenshots)

(Note – the original article was published in German. An online translation rendered some phrases unintelligible.)

The Bugnini Effect: part 1

FROM: Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II: The Destruction of Catholic Faith Through Changes in Catholic Worship

by Michael Davies

The Rise and Fall and Rise and Fall of Annibale Bugnini

Before discussing the time bombs in the Council texts, more specifically those in its Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, which would lead to the destruction of the Roman Rite, it is necessary to examine the role of Annibale Bugnini, the individual most responsible for placing them there and detonating them after the Constitution had won the approval of the Council Fathers.Annibale Bugnini was born in Civitella de Lego [Italy] in 1912. He began his theological studies in the Congregation of the Mission (the Vincentians) in 1928 and was ordained in this Order in 1936. For ten years he did parish work in a Roman suburb, and then, from 1947 to 1957, was involved in writing and editing the missionary publications of his Order. In 1947, he also began his active involvement in the field of specialized liturgical studies when he began a twenty-year period as the director of Ephemerides liturgicae, one of Italy’s best-known liturgical publications. He contributed to numerous scholarly publications, wrote articles on the liturgy for various encyclopaedias and dictionaries, and had a number of books published on both the scholarly and popular level.

Father Bugnini was appointed Secretary to Pope Pius XII’s Commission for Liturgical Reform in 1948. In 1949 he was made a Professor of Liturgy in the Pontifical Propaganda Fide (Propagation of the Faith) University; in 1955 he received a similar appointment in the Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music; he was appointed a Consultor to the Sacred Congregation of Rites in 1956; and in 1957 he was appointed Professor of Sacred Liturgy in the Lateran University. In 1960, Father Bugnini was placed in a position which enabled him to exert an important, if not decisive, influence upon the history of the Church: he was appointed Secretary to the Preparatory Commission on the Liturgy for the Second Vatican Council. [Biographical details are provided in Notitiae, No. 70, February 1972, pp. 33-34.] 

He was the moving spirit behind the drafting of the preparatory schema (plural schemata), the draft document which was to be placed before the Council Fathers for discussion. Carlo Falconi, an “ex-priest” who has left the Church but keeps in close contact with his friends in the Vatican, refers to the preparatory schema as “the Bugnini draft.” [Carlo Falconi, Pope John and His Council (London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1964), p. 244.] It is of the greatest possible importance to bear in mind the fact that, as was stressed in 1972 in Father Bugnini’s own journal, Notitiae (official journal of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship), the Liturgy Constitution that the Council Fathers eventually passed was substantially identical to the draft schema which he had steered through the Preparatory Commission. [Notitiae, No. 70, February 1972, pp. 33-34.] According to Father P. M. Gy, O.P., a French liturgist who was a consultor to the pre-conciliar Commission on the Liturgy, Father Bugnini “was a happy choice as secretary”:

He had been secretary of the commission for reform set up by Pius XII. He was a gifted organizer and possessed an open-minded, pastoral spirit. Many people noted how, with Cardinal Cicognani, he was able to imbue the discussion with the liberty of spirit recommended by Pope John XXIII. [A. Flannery, Vatican II: The Liturgy Constitution (Dublin: Sceptre Books, 1964), p. 20.]

The Bugnini schema was accepted by a plenary session of the Liturgical Preparatory Commission in a vote taken on January 13, 1962. But the President of the Commission, the eighty-year old Cardinal Gaetano Cicognani, had the foresight to realize the dangers implicit in certain passages. Father Gy writes: “The program of reform was so vast that it caused the president, Cardinal Gaetano Cicognani, to hesitate.” [Flannery, p. 23.] Unless the Cardinal could be persuaded to sign the schema, it would be blocked. It could not go through without his signature, even though it had been approved by a majority of the Commission. Father Bugnini needed to act. He arranged for immediate approaches to be made to Pope John, who agreed to intervene. He called for Cardinal Amleto Cicognani, his Secretary of State and the younger brother of the President of the Preparatory Commission, and told him to visit his brother  and not return until the schema had been signed. The Cardinal complied.Later a peritus of the Liturgical Preparatory Commission stated that the old Cardinal was almost in tears as he waved the document in the air and said: “They want me to sign this but I don’t know if I want to.” Then he laid the document on his desk, picked up a pen, and signed it. Four days later he died. [Fr. Ralph M. Wiltgen, S.V.D., The Rhine Flows into the Tiber: A History of Vatican II (1967, rpt. Rockford, IL. TAN, 1985), p. 141.]

A Future Pope’s Masonic/Mafia Connections

From: THE RITE OF SODOMY V by Randy Engels

Montini and the Mafia:

Archbishop Montini Meets “the Shark”

Michele Sindona, aka, “the Shark” was an underworld financial fixture in Milan long before Montini became Archbishop.[80]

Born in Messina at the eastern end of Sicily in 1917, the Jesuit educated Sindona was studying law when the British and American troops invaded Italy during World War II. The enterprising Sindona decided to take advantage of the lucrative black market and went into the lemon and wheat business. Since the Sicilian Mafia controlled the produce trade, Sindona cut a deal with Mafioso head, Vito Genovese, whereby he would turn over a certain percentage of his earnings for protection from the mob for his business and his person.

In 1948, Sindona left the poorer war-ravaged southern boot of Italy and migrated north to the richer industrialized city of Milan where he became a “financial advisor” to a number of influential and wealthy Milanese. His Mafia credentials traveled north with him.

In 1954, when Sindona learned that Pius XII had appointed Msgr. Montini to the See of Milan, he secured a letter of introduction to the new Archbishop from the Archbishop of Messina, his home diocese. Sindona soon had a new client in Montini and the Milanese Church.

Archbishop Montini was so grateful to Sindona, that he took the Sicilian to Rome and introduced him to Pope Pius XII and Prince Massimo Spada, a senior official at the Istituto per le Opere de Religioni (the Institute for Religious Works). The IOR, which is popularly known as the Vatican Bank functions as a depository for the Church’s patrimony earmarked for charitable works.[81] Sindona became “a man of confidence” and was given virtually full control over the IOR’s foreign investment program.

The gross assets of the IOR at the time were over $1 billion, but money was secondary to the IOR’s tax-free status and its potential as a laundry for washing dirty money, specifically, Mafiosi earnings from heroin trade, prostitution and illegal political contributions from underground sources including Freemasons.[82]

In 1960, Sindona, operating under the old adage “the best way to steal from a bank is to own one,” purchased his own bank, the Banca Privata, and within a very short time was receiving deposits from the IOR. He used these funds to pyramid his own financial investments and started to launder illegal funds through the Vatican Bank.

After the election of Pope Paul VI, Sindona followed Montini to Rome and became a major player at the IOR. His operations and financial portfolio grew exponentially. In 1964, Sindona formed an international currency brokerage firm called Moneyrex with 850 client banks and annual financial dealings of $200 billion. Many members of the Palazzo, the rich and famous of Rome, used the firm to shield their fortunes from taxation through illegal offshore accounts. Sindona kept a secret ledger of his clients’ transactions with Moneyrex as insurance for a rainy day. The Vatican and Pope Paul VI, along with the name and numbers of the secret accounts of high ranking members of the Christian Democratic Party as well the Socialist and Social-Democratic Parties were all in Sindona’s little black book.

By the late 1960s, the “Gruppo Sindona” included six (later nine) banks in Italy and abroad and more than 500 giant corporations and conglomerates. One of the banks, the Franklin National Bank of New York, the 18th largest bank in the United States with assets of more than $5 billion, was purchased in part with money Sindona had skimmed off from his Italian banks.[83] He also skimmed off funds from his secret masters, that is, the Sicilian Mafia and, after 1971, from the Propaganda Duo (P2), a Mafia-inspired Masonic Lodge catering to Italy’s elite headed by Grandmaster Licio Gelli. In addition, Sindona was handling financial transactions for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) which during the post-war period was pouring large sums of money into Italy, some of which made its way to the Vatican Bank.[84]

Meanwhile Sindona’s friend, Pope Paul VI was the recipient of bad tidings from the State. The Italian government was threatening to remove the fiscal tax exemption on the Church and Church properties and investments that the Holy See had enjoyed since the days of Mussolini’s Fascist regime. Under the revised tax-code, the Vatican State would be taxed like any other corporate entity. Sindona proposed a scheme to hide Vatican money in offshore investments and the pope agreed.

One of Sindona’s prominent protégés was a native Milanese by the name of Roberto Calvi.

Calvi was the central manager of the Banco Ambrosio, Italy’s most prominent Catholic bank as distinguished from the lay or secular banking institutions operated by the Jews and Freemasons. Calvi was a man after Sindona’s own heart, which spelled disaster ahead not only for the Banco Ambrosiano, but also for its major depositor, the Holy See. Calvi had his own connections to the IOR through Monsignor Macchi, Montini’s personal secretary. He was also on excellent terms with an American priest at the Secretariat of State, Msgr. Paul Marcinkus.

FOOTNOTES

Footnotes.

  1. This section on Vatican finance is based in information taken from a large number of publications and web sites including Conrad Goeringer, “History of the IOR – Murder, Bank, Strategy – the Vatican.” See also David A. Yallop “In God’s Name – An Investigation into The Murder of Pope Paul I.” (Free downloadable e-book available at this site.)

Other footnotes available on request.