«The truth shall make you free». (John 8, 32)

«Brothers, as stewards of the mysteries of God, stand up and act. That you see before your eyes the devastation that others are perpetrating». (St. Athanasius, “Greek Patrology“, XXVII, 219)

«I’m listening to the innovators who want to dismantle the Holy Sanctuary, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject Her finery, make Her remorseful for Her historical past! Well, my dear friend, I am convinced that the Church of Peter must take ownership of Her past, or else She will dig Her own tomb (…) A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. Will be tempted to believe that man has become God, that His Son is merely a symbol, a philosophy like many others, and in churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them, as the sinner who cried in front of the empty tomb: where hast thou put Him?». (From: “Pius XII Before History“)

Preface

Paul VI was always an enigma to all, as Pope John XXIII himself observed. But today, after his death, I believe that can no longer be said, in light of the fact that in his numerous writings, speeches and actions, the figure of Paul VI is clear of any ambiguity. Even if proving this point is not so easy or simple, since he was a very complex character, both when speaking of his “preferences”, by way of suggestions and insinuations, and also for his jumping abruptly from one idea to another, and when he opted for Tradition, but then immediately preferred “novelty”; the whole thing in a language that was often very inaccurate. Simply read, for example, his Addresses of the “General Audiences”, to see a Paul VI made up of an irreducible duality of thought, a permanent conflict, almost, between his thought and that of the Church, which he was nonetheless to represent. Since his time at Milan, many already called him “the man of the utopias”, an Archbishop in pursuit of illusions, generous dreams, yes, yet unreal!”… Which brings to mind what Pius X used to say of the “Leaders” of the Sillon1: “… The exaltation of their sentiments, the undiscriminating good-will of their hearts, their philosophical mysticisms, mixed, with a measure of Illuminism, have carried them towards another Gospel, which they thought was the true Gospel of our Savior…”2.

Now, this our first “study” of research upon the historical-religious figure of Paul VI has brought us to a sad conclusion, and that is, that the “religion” preached by Paul VI did not always coincide with that authentic Religion, constantly taught for 2,000 years, by the perennial Magisterium, by all of the Saints and Doctors of the Church. Although it is far from my intention to judge Paul VI, for “only God probes kidneys and hearts”3, we nonetheless wish to report, here, the painful findings of our study on him, convinced as we are that he has drawn the faithful toward a “new religion”, while this continues to carry the label of “Catholic”.

For the drafting of this “Dossier” – given the seriousness of the “stakes”, especially when it comes to honestly taking one’s courage in both hands to tell the whole “truth”, despite the risk of becoming unpopular (exactly because, customarily, “veritas odium parit” – “Truth begets hatred”), the author of this work, for more than a decade, has been going through no less than 30,000 pages of encyclicals, speeches, Conciliar documents, historical journals, commentaries and magazines of all kinds, in order to gather an overview adequate enough to weigh up the Pontificate of a Pope who has already been consigned to History. Therefore, making it open for discussion and possible “judgments” as to his actions. It is evident that, with this work of mine, I do not claim to have done an exhaustive analysis of the entire oeuvre of Paul VI. Yet his quotations that I am presenting here cannot certainly have a different meaning from what they contain; and therefore, the presentation of other diverse texts of his, cannot but validate the “mens” of this “Hamlet”, that is, of the “double face” of Paul VI! However, the honest reader will find that our writings reproduce his true dominating “mentality”; one so deeply rooted in him as to have disastrously inspired his entire pastoral and his Magisterium. We are presenting this work, therefore, not to rejoice in it, but with sadness. It is but the execution of a painful duty.

As Faith is by now publicly attacked, we can no longer feel bound to the duty of silence, but rather to that of unmasking an anti-Christian mentality, so many years in the making, and one that sunk its root in the Pontificate of Paul VI, too. Certainly, writing about him has not been easy on me, as Paul VI was a Pope at the center of an Ecclesiastical shipwreck that perhaps was, and still is, the most dreadful the Church has ever witnessed throughout Her history.

In writing about him, therefore, one cannot be beating about the bush, quibble in search of sensational episodes in order to hide the reality, that is, the real responsibilities of his unsettling Pontificate, in the complex framework of Vatican II. That is why, to come to a humanly equitable judgment of the thought of Paul VI and his responsibilities, I had to go over again the “official texts” of his writings and his words, pronounced during Vatican II and those of his executions. Only thus could I untangle the grave “question” of his responsibilities in the dreadful drama the Church has lived and has been living from the onset of the Council to this day. I may, therefore, make mine the lesson of Manzoni in his celebrated book: “Observations Upon Catholic Morality“, where in Chapter VII, he wrote: «… One must demand, of a doctrine, the legitimate consequences drawn from it, not those which passions might deduce from it». And so, let us open directly the pages of the First Address to the Council, in which Paul VI made his own, manifestly, the principle of “Modernist heresy” that Pope John XXIII has already expressed, in his Opening Address of the (second Vatican) Council, on October 11, 1962, (an Address, however, which had been inspired by the then Archbishop of Milan, Monsignor Giovanni Battista Montini (Paul VI –Michael)), in which he said the following:

«Neque opus Nostrum, quasi ad finem primarium, eo spectat, ut de quibusdam capitibus praecipuis doctrinae ecclesiasticae disceptetur, sed potius ut ea ratione pervestigetur et exponatur, quam tempora postulant nostra».

And here is the substance in the English language: «…But, above all, this Christian doctrine be studied and exposed through the forms of literary investigation and formulation of contemporary thought».

Now, one such “principle” is unheard of in the history of all the century of the Ecclesiastical Magisterium, as it takes the place of the “dogmatic” principle, alone to offer proof and certainty of the “Catholic truth”, and the teaching Church has always taught that the “reason of believing” does not lean at all upon scientific conquests, achieved through man’s intellect, for the “reason of believing” rests exclusively upon the AUTHORITY of REVEALING GOD and upon that of the SUPREME MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH, which received from Jesus Christ the mandate to teach it officially and in an infallible manner. The “principle” enunciated by Paul VI, on the contrary, becomes the negation of that of the APOSTOLIC TRADITION, wanted by God, and it reverses the traditional Magisterium of the Church, putting on the teacher’s desk, in place of “REVEALING GOD” and of the “TEACHING CHURCH”, the method of man’s autonomous investigation and the formulation of a purely human and arbitrary doctrine, peculiar to the philosophical-literary style of modern man – therefore, of the man of all ages, mutable with the times – oblivious that only the “truth” revealed by God is the sole immutable and eternal truth. Therefore, it vanished; that principle of the investigation to know “Revelation” by knowing the original teaching of the Church was done away with, instead it would be that of knowing the teaching of modern thought. But this smacks of “heresy”! One cannot invent dogma, nor can one reduce it into a convenient cliché, as it has been done in these years of upheaval and arrogance, ignoring that Christ, and only Him, is and shall always be the absolute “truth”. How Paul VI should have shuddered, for inflicting on the Church of Christ this horrible catastrophe, by means and in the name of an alleged Ecumenical Council!

Furthermore how prevailing is still that whole 2nd Chapter of Epistle 2.a of St. Paul to the Thessalonians: «… For the mystery of iniquity already worketh: only that he who now holdeth do hold, until he be taken out of the way. And then that wicked one shall be revealed: whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: him whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power and signs and lying wonders: And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish: because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth but have consented to iniquity»4.

This is the reason, the only reason, in the light of the Gospel and of the Tradition of the Church that we are asking the reader to proceed with the following pages.

1 Sillon was a social Movement, originated in France in 1893 by Marc Sangnier. At first, the movement adhered to the Pontifical directives. Leo XIII and Pius X honored Sangnier with praises. The organ of the Movement was the newspaper “Le Sillon” (The Furrow). Toward 1903, however, the Movement began to involve itself with political-social concepts that brought it to become a “Center of Moral Unit” independent of the doctrine of the Church. Hence the condemnation inflicted upon it by Pius X in 1910.

2 S. Pius X, “Letter on the Sillon”, 25 August 25, 1910, n. 41.

3 Psalm 7, 10.

4 II Thessalonians II, 7-12.

«… I was not drawn to the clerical state which seemed sometimes stagnant, closed… involving the renunciation of worldly tendencies in proportion to the renunciation of the world… If I should feel this way, it means that I am called to another state, where I would be fulfilled more harmoniously for the common good of the Church». (Paul VI to Jean Guitton, in: “Dialogues with Paul VI,” p. 285)

«I noticed how his thinking was secular. With him, I was not in the presence of a “cleric”, he even promoted an unexpectedly secular Papacy»! (Jean Guitton, in: “The Secret Paul VI“, Ed. Pauline)

PROLOGUE

It was during the course of the works of the 35th Assembly of the Italian Bishops that Cardinal Camillo Ruini, the president of CEI (Italian Episcopal Conference), before the Pope and the Bishops announced the decision of filing the “cause for the beatification” of Paul VI. Although the assent of the “Permanent Council of the Italian Episcopal Conference” had already been granted, the procedure for the causes of the Popes also calls, however, for the consultation of the entire National Episcopate. A Pope, in fact, is not only the “Bishop” of Rome, but he is also the “Primate of Italy”, and therefore the “placet” of the Italian Bishops was one more passage required by the canonical procedure, such as it was established by Paul VI himself, and, subsequently, by John Paul II in the document “Divinus Perfectionis Magister“. Rome is, however, the diocese of every Pope. It is Rome, therefore, that must act as official interlocutor with the “Congregation for the Causes of the Saints”. And so on May 13, 1992, Cardinal Ruini, Vicar of the Pope for the city of Rome, issued an “Edict”, appearing in the diocesan weekly “Roma Sette” in which, among other things, it stated: «We invite every single faithful to communicate to us directly, or else transmit to the Diocesan Tribunal of the Vicariate of Rome any “information” which, in any way, may argue against the reputation of sanctity of the said “Servant of God”».

I waited a few more years before introducing this “evidence” against the reputation of sanctity” of Paul VI, both for religious courtesy toward part of the “senior consents” to the introduction of “the cause of beatification” and in order to first follow a part of the canonical process, hoping that at least someone would come forth with a few reasons “for serious doubt” (at least on the opportunity of this process!).

However as this did not happen, the undersigned, who completely disagrees with this initiative for the beatification of Paul VI has felt the obligation to pass these comprehensive “informational pages” against the reputation of holiness.”

Also, I was morally driven because of two “pushes” by John Paul II: one, on May 13, 1993 in his speech to the Bishops at the Italian Episcopal Conference saying: «I received the notification of the opening of the process for the canonization (?!) of my Predecessor, Paul VI. To me, he was a Father, in a personal sense. For this reason, I can but express my great joy and my gratitude»…

The other, just 15 years after the death of Paul VI, saying: «I do hope the process of beatification of Paul VI may soon be favorably concluded. We pray that the Lord will grant us to see, as soon as possible, this Servant of His elevated to the honors of the altars»1.

Well, he told me that the said “pronouncement” had been a sort of “coup d’état” on the part of the Vicar of Rome, since “the majority of the Italian Episcopate would squarely reject it” (sic). I leave with him – now in heaven – the responsibility of this clarification.

I, however, believe this to be true, due to the Monsignor’s profound honesty and sincerity, and from the various other sources that I subsequently gathered, on this scheme to raise to the altars the two Popes of Vatican II, in order to manifest the “supernaturalness” of Vatican II, and, consequently, of this “New Church” with its “Reforms”, despite the explicit declaration of Paul VI himself when he spoke of the “self-destruction” afoot within the Church (for which, however, he himself was primarily responsible!).

That being said, another justification, for my work on Paul VI, is the fact that, in any age, historians and theologians have always judged every “Pontificate”; thence there cannot be anything extraordinary in passing a “judgment” on the pontificate of Paul VI, as well. Moreover: as a son, by natural right, has always the prerogative of complaining about his own father and even reproach him about his acts, when these should not be in keeping with his parental duties, why should not I, a priest, and a member of the “Ecclesia Mater”, have the right and duty to maintain the teaching I received as irreformable doctrine, and therefore eternal, from the “Ecclesia Docens” in Her perpetual Magisterium? Is my “rational homage” to God3, through Faith, perhaps to break away from that which once was taught to us, and replace it with that which is being taught today, in the name of “novelty” and “change”? And is the one “responsible”, the “accomplisher”, the “collaborator” of all that occurred, during and after the Vatican II, not perhaps he who sat at the “top” of the Hierarchy? Certainly never, in the past, was there such a disconcerting conflict, or a similar contradiction between the “truths” of the “past” and the other “alleged truths” of this “present”.

Definitely, one needs to have lost all love for the Church and for souls – as well as lost common “good sense” – to have the nerve to propose the beatification of Paul VI! Indeed this is the last straw, this desire to sanctify a Pope that openly failed his “duties” as Supreme Pontiff. Yes, for even a Pope, like any Catholic faithful, must indeed seek his own sanctification through the fulfillment of the duties related to his own station.

Now, since in this historical-theological “Essay” I shall attempt to demonstrate that Paul VI did not fulfill his duty, I allowed myself to side with the “devil’s advocate”, the one who in every “process of beatification”, has the grave task of scrutinizing the life and writings of the candidate, just to dig up all those elements that might oppose his canonization!

Even though a man becomes the Head of the Roman Catholic Church, and is called officially “Holy Father”, does not mean that his “alleged sanctity” has necessarily accompanied him into this office. In fact, of the 261 Popes who governed the Catholic Church, only 76 were ever “canonized”. The last of them being St. Pius X.

It also must be known that, within the framework of the procedure necessary to establish “the heroic virtues” – an indispensable preliminary to beatification and canonization, rather, a “sine qua non” condition – is the verification of a certain number of posthumous miracles (that is, after death), attributed to the celestial intercession of the candidate. This, legal procedure must be executed, as the honor of the Church and the credibility of Her decisions toward everyone, believers and non-believers, are at stake. Unfortunately, some dispensations that have already been done against these canonical requirements have later opened the way to certain abuses! Now, even if this inexplicable push for a quick speedy solution for the “process for the beatification” of Paul VI, may not seem an obvious violence to Canon Law in order to rush to a positive solution, and even if a conclusion in his favor is reached and would be based exclusively on positive “depositions”, it is undeserved, illegal and dishonest, since Paul VI had betrayed Pius XII, with whom he collaborated; he had a dubious moral life4; and finally his Pontificate had been marred by very grave deviations from the very “Depositum Fidei” and consequent errors.

1 August 7, 1993.

2 He had been collaborating with it for over 12 years, with the “Vangeli Festivi” and with the “Osservatorio Romano” page.

3 Romans 12, 1; Pius IX, “Qui pluribus”, DB 1737.

4 In order for the “Congregation for the Causes of the Saints” to recognize the “supernatural signs” of divine approval, such as “miracles”, obtained by “He” whom the Congregation must recognize as “worthy” of the supreme honors, the Congregation must, in the first place, (and thus in Paul VI’s cases, too) form a clear idea as to the “reputation” of the “sanctity of life”, and then study the “heroicity of the virtues”. Now, that could neither come from the sole observation of the “facts”, nor from the exclusive account of the judgments, but it must also come from the people that have known him in life, or, at any rate, from reliable writings and “documents”. Now, since it is undisputable that Paul VI’s moral repute had not been so clear, it is a very serious moral obligation for the “Congregation for the Causes of the Saints” to ascertain the minutest detail.

While a “beatification” would not imply the infallibility on the part of the Papal Magisterium, (and all the less would it confer any value upon the saying, “vox populi, vox Dei!”), it would not be honest, nonetheless, that one let the faithful believe it, distracting them from a just and dutiful notion one has to have of the divine truth, of the alleged “sanctity” of the elected, and of his alleged virtues

For this, what more could be done, to give a confident “judgment” of the real “thought” of Paul VI and, therefore, of his responsibility in the dreadful drama in which the Church is living, if not quoting his own “Addresses” to the Council and his Sunday “texts”, or of particular occasions, relating to his mandate as Supreme Pontiff of the Church of Christ? How many times had I noticed that Paul VI was against his Predecessors, despite the illusory quantity of mundane applauses he received! How many times had I considered that his “Great Design” which was opposed, however, to the Faith of Catholic Tradition, to the extent of recalling what St. Pius X had written: «This triumph of God on earth, both in individuals and in society, is but the return of the erring to God through Christ, and to Christ through the Church, which we announced as the program of our Pontificate»5.

5 “Communium Rerum” of April 21, 1909.

While studying the program of Paul VI, I saw the opposite, and that is: to lead to ruin the Kingdom of God through a “universal ecumenism” of “faith in Man” and of “cult of Man“*, necessarily leading to a Deist Humanism in the service of the Masonic UN (United Nations). Now, this reminds me of that strange “confidence” Paul VI made to the pilgrims that Wednesday of April 12, 1967: «But there is the strange phenomenon that is produced in us: wanting to comfort you, you communicate to us, in a certain sense, your peril, to which we wish to remedy; it comes to mind, with the consciousness of our inadequacy, the memory of the weaknesses of Simon, son of John, called and given the name Peter by Christ… the doubt… the fear… the temptation of bending Faith to modern mentality…».

Unfortunately, this Church of Christ, under his Pontificate, indeed withered because of his innovative, reforming, and perturbing action. And he could see it for himself, so much so that, in disturbing terms, on December 7, 1968 – third anniversary of his proclamation of the “Cult of Man“* – he had to recognize it: «The Church, today, is going through a moment of disquiet. Some indulge in self-criticism, one would say even self-destruction. It is like an acute and complex inner upheaval, which no one would have expected after the Council. One thought of a flourishing, a serene expansion of the concepts matured in the great conciliar assembly. There is also this aspect in the Church, there is the flourishing, but… for the most part one comes to notice the painful aspect. The Church is hit also by he who is part of it».

*See also page 5 of
VATICAN II ABOUT FACE-FR LUIGI VILLA

With this book I shall attempt to demonstrate my assertions using of preference the “texts” of Monsignor Montini, Cardinal Montini, Pope Montini himself. Although forcibly limited in number, I believe the quotations will be nonetheless sufficient to give knowledge of his real “minds” both as “Pastor” and “Supreme Priest” of the Church of Christ.

I shall attempt, therefore, to show, even though in a concise yet sufficient manner, what occurred in the Church during his years of government. It was an authentic “Revolution”, a sort of civil war, even though he differentiated its method and object, and the position it held.

A book, therefore, this book of mine, I place at the feet of the Immaculate, entreating her blessing over the author and its readers.

***

All of the Popes, therefore, had stood their ground.

And now, let us ask ourselves: Why was that which the Church had always strongly rejected and condemned, allowed even within the doctrinal riverbed by Vatican II?

The answer to this question, I find in the opening address of Vatican II of October 11, 1962, hammered out and drafted by the Archbishop of Milan, Montini7, but pronounced by John XXIII; an address that opened the doors8 to all “novelties”. In fact, the “Message to the World” of October 20, voted by acclamation, was a signal of victory for the “new spirit”. Paul VI would later make of it a boisterous address: “Unusual case – said he – and yet an admirable one. One could say that the prophetical charisma of the Church had suddenly exploded”9. And then came the “Pacem in Terris“, all inspired with the “Declaration on the Rights of Man”: rights of “freedom”, of “universal peace”, in accordance with the Masonic principles, and for these divulged and promptly exploited worldwide. But it was only the beginning of the dissolution.

With Paul VI, in fact, subversion would open the floodgates and acquire a certain official legitimacy it did not have before. One has just to read all the “opening and closing Addresses” of Session II that Paul VI delivered, brimming with that “new spirit”, with that subtle oscillation of his thought that knew how to reconcile the extremes, that is, the contradictions, with skilful boldness10. And so came the “October Revolution” with the ballot of October 30, 1963. But it will be the encyclical “Ecclesiam Suam” of 6^th August, 1964, (already hinted at in his address of September 29, 1963, which would become the “Blueprint” of his Pontificate) that Paul VI would manifest his intentions, even though persevering in his equivocal behavior, speaking of “vital Experience… and yet faith”; of “Renewal… and yet Tradition and spiritual perfection”; of “Dialogue… and yet preaching”… Words sweetened with clear vision, however, with his “new Religion”, which all his predecessors had rejected. And it would be the choice of the “Reformation”, of the “Optimism”, of the “Ecumenical Dialogue”, of the “Opening to the World”, that will produce, then, his most dangerous “schemes”, which he solemnly promulgated in spite of the not so few oppositions. But the opposition would be crushed, and subversion would gain the upper hand.

1 Pius VI, “Auctorem Fidei” Bull of August 28, 1794.

2 DB 1613-1617.

3 DB 1688-1780.

4 Pius IX, June 16, 1871; and also December 11, 1876.

5 DB 1866.

6 DB 2071-2110.

7 Testimony of Monsignor Colombo published by Juffè, “Paul VI”, p. 129.

8 During a reception given by Cardinal Suenens for non-Catholic guests, Michele Harper, the director of the British “Foundation Trust”, had to say, “John XXIII opened the window, but Paul VI opened the door!”

9 Address of September 29, 1963; “Address to the Council”, Centurion Editions, n. 6, p. 118.

10 Address of November 18, 1965

***

After these clear hints we can say that the subversion (of the Faith) in the universal Church is the inescapable consequence of the Pontificate of Paul VI, who used in fact Vatican II to achieve his liberal dreams of “renovation” and “revision”. Read: «… We wish to make our own the important words employed by the Council; those words which define its spirit, and, in a dynamical synthesis, form the spirit of all those who refer to it, be they within or without the Church. The word “NOVELTY”, simple, very dear to today’s men, is much utilized; it is theirs… That word… it was given to us as an order, as a program… It comes to us directly from the pages of the Holy Scripture: “For, behold (says the Lord), I create new heavens and a new earth”. St. Paul echoes these words of the prophet Isaiah11; then, the Apocalypse: “I am making everything new”12. And Jesus, our Master, was not He, himself, an innovator? “You have heard that people were told in the past … but now I tell you…”13 – Repeated in the “Sermon on the Mount”. It is precisely thus that the Council has come to us. Two terms characterize it: “RENOVATION” and “REVISION”. We are particularly keen that this “spirit of renovation” – according to the expression of the Council – be understood and experienced by everyone. It responds to the characteristic of our time, wholly engaged in an enormous and rapid transformation, and generating novelties in every sector of modern life. In fact, one cannot shy away from this spontaneous reflection: if the whole world is changing, will not religion change as well? Between the reality of life and Christianity, Catholicism especially, is not there reciprocal disagreement, indifference, misunderstanding, and hostility? The former is leaping forward; the latter would not move. How could they go along? How could Christianity claim to have, today, any influence upon life? And it is for this reason that the Church has undertaken some reforms, especially after the Council. The Episcopate is about to promote the “renovation” that corresponds to our present needs; Religious Orders are reforming their Statutes; Catholic laity is qualified and found its role within the life of the Church; Liturgy is proceeding with a reform in which anyone knows the extension and importance; Christian education reviews the methods of its pedagogy; all the canonical legislations are about to be revised. And how many other consoling and promising novelties we shall see appearing in the Church! They attest to Her new vitality, which shows that the Holy Spirit animates Her continually, even in these years so crucial to religion. The development of ecumenism, guided by Faith and Charity, itself says what progress, almost unforeseeable, has been achieved during the course and life of the Church. The Church looks at the future with Her heart brimming with hope, brimming with fresh expectation in love… We can say… of the Council: It marks the onset of a new era, of which no one can deny the new aspects that We have indicated to you»14.

It is this, therefore, the true identity of a Vatican II alleged as only entirely “pastoral”, but also filled with ambiguity, reticence, and surprise attacks, which demonstrate that the “ECCLESIAM SUAM”, far from representing a certain support for those theses, has been used to erect a building on the sand. One should pause and reflect a moment upon the consequence of those FOUR “CONDITIONS”, indeed dictated by Paul VI in the “Ecclesiam Suam” for a fecund dialogue:

1) The CLARITY: which should consist in a PERFECT BALANCE of position between the two dialoguing parties. (But didn’t Jesus send out HIS APOSTLES to PREACH? And thus, NOT TO DIALOGUE!).

Such a “stance” of Vatican II, therefore, is “UNHEARD OF” in the entire history of the Church, although She had to confront the grave aberrations of PAGANISM, of POLYTHEISM, of GREEK PHILOSOPHY, of SOPHISMS of all kinds. But the Church never dreamt of adopting that impossible principle of a parity of “dialogue” between Herself and non-believers.

2) The MEEKNESS: one sided, however, and with the exclusion of the ANNOUNCEMENT – always mandatory – and even with the exclusion of “threats of damnation” for those whom “non crediderit” (“will not believe”)! Now, even this “new style of evangelization” is a true BETRAYAL of the MANDATE of CHRIST to the APOSTLES: “Euntes docete” (“Go Teach”). Especially now that every DEFENSE of the FAITH has been dismantled.

3) The TRUST: with only two “human” aspects of the “dialogue”; that is: trust in the INTRINSIC VIRTUE of the WORD (and not even that it is about the REVEALED WORD, is specified!), and trust in the approach of those who welcome it (with no hint at the action, nonetheless necessary, supernatural, of prayer and Grace).

4) The PRUDENCE: which, however, here is completely wanting, precisely because of those three preceding conditions indicated in the “Ecclesiam Suam”! Again: that invitation to exercise the three superior faculties of man, with regard to clarity and dialogue, is surely not an exhortation to encourage an apostolic keenness, nor to revise the form of the language to be used. However, this idea that the Church up until 1964, that is, prior to the advent of Vatican II, had wasted time, using radically wrong methods, hence now, She must reverse everything She has done and bring Herself up to date, had certainly been neither a polite nor an edifying expression on the part of Vatican II toward the Church of Tradition. Furthermore, they call for the Church to employ, today, a technique of more perfect “dialogue”, such as that which has been invented now. Hence one should no longer imitate, for example, the talk of a St. Stephen, the Protomartyr, with those of the Synagoga Libertinorum, who ended up with stoning him to death just because he had the imprudence of not remaining silent about delicate truths that were unpalatable to those devils.

And so one should no longer learn from the Apologist Saints whom, like St. Augustine, fought against all the heretics of their time. In fact, the four points – quoted above – of the “Ecclesiam Suam”, represent a pastoral position diametrically opposite to that of the Apostle Paul, who pointed out: «… et sermo meus, et praedicatio mea NON IN PERSUASIBILIBUS HUMANAE SAPIENTIAE VERBIS [“and my speech and my preaching not in persuasive words of human wisdom,”] (a “method” willed, instead, by the “Ecclesiam Suam”!)… UT FIDES VESTRA NON SIT IN SAPIENTIA HOMINUM, SED IN VIRTUDE DEI»15 [“that your faith be not in the wisdom of men, but in the strength of God.”].

The “dialogue” of the “Ecclesiam Suam”, on the contrary, after twenty centuries of preached Christianity (not “dialogued”!), must rest exclusively upon “human means”, excluding the fundamental necessity of the Divine Grace in order that the Revealed Word be fruitful. Since Vatican II, not anymore! It (the Revealed Word) must be presented and dialogued as a reasoning of man, from man to man. To Paul VI, that is, in the “dialogue” must place a value on the authority, or the personal competence and ability of the interlocutor rather than the authority of the REVEALING GOD. And, unfortunately, this “doctrine” of the “Ecclesiam Suam” is latent in all the Documents, Decrees, and Constitutions of Vatican II, in which man is made the “center of everything”. As Paul VI, having said it in person, no one could ever accuse us of having missed the tenor of that “character”, unsettling, paradoxical, and subversive to the Supreme Magisterium of twenty centuries, which put Man in the place of God. Do read, therefore, this other disquieting confession of Paul VI’s, too: «Nunc vero animadvertere juvat, Ecclesiam per suum magisterium, quamvis nullum doctrinae caput sententiis dogmaticis extradinariis definire voluerit… ad cuius normam homines hodie tenentur (?!) conscientiam suam, suamque agendi rationem conformare…».

As one can see, here too Paul VI expressly declared that Vatican II did not intend to teach, through dogmatic definitions, any Chapter of doctrine, and therefore, necessarily, Vatican II is in no part covered by infallibility, since infallibility is tied only to the “truths” taught by the Universal Ordinary Magisterium as revealed – and, therefore, to be believed “de fide divina”, aut “catholica” – by the Solemn Magisterium and by the Ecumenical Councils, or even by the Supreme Pontiff, as regards dogmatic definitions. Therefore, by avoiding to provide dogmatic definitions, Paul VI could also utter these other incredible enormities, such as are read shortly after that declaration in the same address: «Aliud est etiam, quod consideratione dignum putamus: huiusmodi divitem doctrinae copiam, eo unice spectare, ut homini serviat» (!!).

The English version, perhaps, will highlight in a higher disquieting degree the enormity of that declaration: «… All this doctrinal wealth points but to one direction: to serve man». Disconcerting indeed! For these are the words of a “Pope” whom, to further reinforce us in his thought, continues:

«The Church has, so to say, declared Herself the SERVANT OF HUMANITY»… (Whereas Our Lady had declared Herself “ANCILLA DOMINI”)… He then continues: «Servant of Humanity, at the very time when Her ECCLESIASTICAL MAGISTERIUM and Her PASTORAL GOVERNMENT have, by reason of the council’s solemnity, assumed greater splendor and vigor. The idea of MINISTRY has been central… Has all this and all that we might say upon the HUMAN VALUE (?!) of the Council, perhaps diverted the attention of the CHURCH IN COUNCIL toward the ANTHROPOCENTRIC direction of modern culture? DIVERTED, NO; DIRECTED, YES». Extremely clear yet bewildering words, for they are the violation of the principle of identity (or of contradiction). In both one and the other, in fact, the “center” is always Man. The remainder of the Address, then, intensifies his position even more: «Any careful observer of THE COUNCIL’S PREVAILING INTEREST FOR HUMAN AND TEMPORAL VALUES (?!) Cannot deny that such (PREVAILING) INTEREST derives from the PASTORAL CHARACTER the COUNCIL has made ITS PROGRAM…».

Now, this reference, often recurring in the Conciliar and postConciliar Documents, to the pastoral character of Vatican II, creates a specious ambiguity, as it tends to distinguish itself from all the previous Ecumenical Councils, precisely for its pastoral character, almost insinuating, however, the idea that the other Councils had never paid heed to the “pastoral reasons” and, therefore, “practical”, as if they had limited themselves to chasing butterflies under the Arch of Titus, or hanging out in the stratosphere of theological abstractions. However, it is like bestowing an unjustifiable credential of “idiot” on the Fathers of the other Councils! To us, instead, it throws rather a shadow of suspicion upon the doctrinal validity of Vatican II, so bristling with sophisms, traps, heavy pages, with a twisted language, insidious, reticent, ambiguous. For instance its dwelling at the core of the issues without discerning their bottom can be seen, in the answer given by some Fathers, at the end of the Dogmatic Constitutions “Lumen Gentium” and “Dei Verbum”. It will suffice to read that answer, on page 254, marginal number 446, and page 522 and 523, at bottom, just beneath Paul VI’s signature, of the “Edizioni Dehoniane”, at the words: “RATIONE HABITA moris CONCILIARIS, ac praesentis CONCILII (?!)… FINIS PASTORALIS… (Reason having been established of the will of the Council and of the present council…the purpose is pastoral…) It will be seen, Before those declarations of Paul VI in his Address of December 7, 1965, closing Vatican II… and those of the “DECLARATIO DE LIBERTATE RELIGIOSA”, before the words of marginal number 1044 and 1045, upon the “INVIOLABLE RIGHTS OF THE HUMAN PERSON”, (The only “Rights” named in those numbers, ignoring GOD’s altogether, although PRIMARY and CONDITIONING of Man’s Rights), will be clearly seen both the lack of preparation and the swindle, “in contemptum” of the whole Supreme Magisterium of the Dogmatic Tradition of the Church antecedent to Vatican II. Therefore, the entire chapter of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Thessalonians will always have contemporary meaning: “Non credendum seductoribus… et tunc revelabitur ille iniquus, quem Dominus Jesus interficiet Spiritu oris sui et destruet illustratione adventus sui eum… Ideo mittet illis Deus operationem erroris ut CREDANT MENDACIO, UT JUDICENTUR INIQUITATI”16. All that is left to do is to confide in the Lord, repeating with the Apostle, “Scio enim CUI CREDIDI, et CERTUS SUM quia potens est DEPOSITUM MEUM SERVARE IN ILLUM DIEM”17. [For I know whom I have believed and I am certain that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him, against that day. – 2 Tim. 1:12]

11 II Corinthians 5, 17.

12 21, 5.

13 Matthew 5.

14 General Audience of July 2, 1969.

15 I Corinthians 2, 2, 4

16 “One is not to believe in the seducers… And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming… And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie… That they all might be damned who believed not the truth” (II Thessalonians 2, 8-12).

17 II Timothy 1, 12.

***

At this juncture, one finds oneself confronted with a “New Christianity”, that of Paul VI, who has endeavored to render Christianity more “present”, more interesting for the man of today. But his was a wrong course. The religion founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ is essentially supernatural. According to human wisdom, however, His teachings, transmitted to us by the Holy Gospels, are absolutely incomprehensible and unacceptable. A God who makes Himself “Man”, who let them insult Him, scorn Him all the way to the ignominy of the Cross… A Master beatifying sacrifice and suffering and preaching the annihilation of His own self is certainly not loved by the world for His doctrine, but He is loved only through Faith, with a vision, that is, supernatural, which transcends completely the human vision of things. Paul VI and Vatican II, instead, pushed things in a manner that, by degrees, God has almost disappeared to make room for man. In this picture, Christianity has become “religion of man”, and although the name of God remains and the “religion” may be still called “Christian”, in reality, however, it is nourished only by the second Commandment, filled with “let us love one another”, with “enough with religious war”, with “let nothing stand in our way anymore”… in order to embrace only those things that might unite us. But this is in radical opposition with the Gospel that teaches, instead, the “supremacy of God” and of His Love. Therefore, if we are to love and serve our neighbor, too, we are to do it because God the Father loves him in the person of His Own Son Jesus Christ, and thus without the love of God, even the love of man has no sense anymore18. Sure, Paul VI could not deny openly this dogmatic truth, but he did go, however, as far as saying that love is “due to every man for his own quality”19. However, from the reading of his “texts” his obsession, his primary anxiety is only, or almost, at the level of man. In fact, he expresses himself thus: «This Council… in conclusion, will give us a simple, new and solemn teaching to love man in order to love God»20. «…To know God, one has to know man»21. «All these doctrinal riches (of the Council) aim at one and one thing only: to serve man»22. «We, too, no more than any other, we have the cult of man»23. «The religion of the God who became man has met the religion (for such it is!) of man who makes himself God. And what happened? Was there a clash, a battle, a condemnation? There could have been, but there was none»24! And so forth, as in this other “passage” of his of March 27, 1960, at a conference: «Shan’t modern man, one day, as his scientific studies progress and discover realities hidden behind the mute face of matter, come to prick up his ear to the wonderful voice of the Spirit palpitating in it? Shan’t it be the religion of tomorrow? Einstein himself perceived the spontaneity of a religion of today… Isn’t the work already in progress along the trajectory leading straight up to religion?»25. Astonishing indeed! Montini, here, preaches a “religion” wherein the supernatural and Revelation are excluded! One could say that, to him, the religion of tomorrow would no longer be that of Jesus Christ, that which is communicated to man through the Grace of the Faith, of the Holy Gospel, of the Passion of Christ, of the Holy Eucharist… No! That other “religion” of his shall be the “religion of the universe”, a result, that is, of the “straight trajectory” traced by work and scientific research. A “dream”, however, which has nothing to do with the Christian Faith, for Christianity is Divine religion, flowing out from the Sapience of God, and thus contrary to the sapience and preferences of the man fallen with the original sin. Christianity, therefore, is opposed to “human development” in the sense intended by the world, for Christianity places itself on a supernatural level, where the development is certainly real, but altogether different. The Saints, in fact – shining examples of Christianity – have never attempted to “realize themselves”, but rather to mortify themselves and renounce everything for the love of God. It is the Christian asceticism that realizes us in a wonderful spiritual blossoming in which the true freedom of the sons of God is to be found. Instead, the humanism of Paul VI (which he often confuses, in his writings and speeches, as if spirit and matter might form one sole thing), places itself at the level of the exclusive “human reason”, coupled with a “natural conscience”, as a norm, whereas, on the contrary, Christianity places itself at the level of the Faith, taking the Holy Gospel as “norm” to follow in the course of life.

18 “La Civiltà Cattolica” magazine of March 1974.

19 Peace Day Message, November 14, 1970.

20 Council’s Closing Address, December 7, 1965.

21 Idem.

22 Idem.

23 Idem.

24 Idem.

25 “Documentation Catholique” n. 133, June 19, 1960.

The great mistake, therefore, of Paul VI was that of being rather a humanist than a Christian, putting the Gospel at the service of his humanist “dream”, identical to the ideal of Freemasonry, whose ideal of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, would be achieved through the development of the universal conscience.

The whole of the writings and speeches of Paul VI, in fact, show, with sad clearness, that it was man, rather than God, the center of his cares… That all was thought out, judged, and directed according to the service of man. Paul VI’s Christianity unpinned from the Cross. Namely: – a Christ considered a “liberator”, not as much from sin, as from suffering, from humiliation, from enslavement; – a Gospel mixed up with the “Charter of Man’s Rights”, and placed at the service of “social justice”; – the “Rights of God” neglected, to the advantage of the exaltation of the “Rights” and preferences of man; – an evangelization reduced to a “dialogue”, not to convert, and resting upon “human means” rather than upon supernatural means…

In brief: Paul VI, more than Christ and His Gospel, has served, and had man served, substituting: – the supremacy of the supernatural with the supremacy of the natural, of the temporal, of man; – the supremacy of the “Law of God” with the supremacy of the conscience; – the supremacy of the “Kingdom of God” and of the “eternal life” with the supremacy of the world, of history, of his chimera toward achieving a sort of paradise on earth. After which, one could accuse Paul VI of giving man a “cult” that should not be given him. Man must be certainly loved, but not of a disorderly love, that is, a love not regulated by the love of God or independent of His love. The “cult of man“, instead, leads to the myth of the sameness among all men, hence the leveling of the classes (with all the violence this brings about), hence “universal democracy” (another utopia dear to Paul VI), which is but Masonic universalism. Let us further quote, therefore, some other “text” that illustrates this “cult of man” in Paul VI, so evident in his humanism. In his “Address” to the Last Public Session of Vatican II, Paul VI made a sort of “profession of faith” that sounds unprecedented. That his speaking of man, whom must be understood, respected, and admired, ended up in an authentic “cult of man”! «The Church of the Council – said he – has much focused on man, man as he really is today: living man, man all wrapped up in himself, man who makes himself not only the center of his every interest but dares to claim that he is the principle and explanation of all reality… Secular humanism, revealing itself in its horrible anti-clerical reality has, in a certain sense, defied the Council. The religion of the God who became man has met the religion of man who makes himself God. And what happened? Was there a clash, a battle, a condemnation? There could have been, but there was none. The old story of the Samaritan has been the model of the spirituality of the Council. A feeling of boundless sympathy has permeated the whole of it. The attention of our Council has been absorbed by the discovery of human needs. But we call upon those who term themselves modern humanists, and who have renounced the transcendent value of the highest realities, to give the Council credit at least for one quality and to recognize our own new type of humanism: we, too, in fact, we more than any others, honor mankind; WE HAVE THE CULT OF MAN!»26.

But already on September 14, 1965, Paul VI was asking himself: «Could the Church, could we but look upon him (man) and love him?…» «The Council is a solemn act of love toward humanity. May Christ assist us so that it be truly so». Now, speaking in such a way has a flavor of abdication, of servility in front of atheism in order to obtain its favors. But he, Paul VI, calls it “a merit”, whereas, on the contrary, it is an abandonment, a deformation of Charity. Instead of condemning the insane pride of man, who exalts himself and is no longer willing to submit to God, Paul VI fondles him, wants to appear likable to him, affirming that he and his peers have a “cult of man” that surpasses even that of atheistic humanism! It was then this very form of idolatry toward man that caused “Religious Freedom” to be proclaimed as a fundamental and absolute right of man! It was then this very false love for man that gave life to the “Gaudium et Spes“, or “The Church in the World of Today”, “which will represent the crowning of the work of the Council”, and which Paul VI will proclaim has inspired the religion of Man, “the center and crown of the world”27.

In his humanist delirium, he further added: «Another point we must stress is this: all this rich teaching (of the Council) is channeled in one direction, the SERVICE OF MANKIND, of every condition, in every weakness and need…». And he continued: «Has all this, and everything else that we might say about the human value of the Council, perhaps diverted the attention of the Church in the Council toward the trend of modern culture, centered on humanity? Nay, the Church stood Her course, but She turned to man… The modern mind, accustomed to assess everything in terms of usefulness, will readily admit that the Council’s value is great if only because everything has been referred to human usefulness. Hence no one should ever say that a religion like the Catholic religion is without use, seeing that when it has its greatest self-awareness and effectiveness, as it has in the Council, it declares itself entirely on the side of man and in his service…»28.

And on July 13, 1969, he said «Man reveals himself to us a giant. He reveals himself to us divine not in himself, but in his origin and in his destiny. Honor to man, honor to his dignity, to his spirit, to his life». Yes, for man is the end … «The first step toward the final and transcendent goal which is the basis and cause of every love… Our humanism becomes Christianity, our Christianity becomes centered on God; in such sort that we may say, to put it differently: a knowledge of man is a prerequisite for a knowledge of God». Disconcerting indeed! In his utterance, gone are the Cross of Christ, the baptismal Grace, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, the mysteries of the Faith, treasures of Truth, of Life, of Virtue of the Sole Catholic Church.

26 Council’s Closing Address, December 7, 1965.

27 “Gaudium et Spes”, n. 12.

28 Council’s Closing Address, December 7, 1965

We are in front of a sort of idolatry of man, such as Christ Himself denounced when He responded to Satan that was tempting Him: “Vade retro, Satana! For it is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve”29.

Now, this brings to mind another address of St. Pius X’s, in his first encyclical: «Such, in truth, is the audacity and the wrath employed everywhere in persecuting religion, in combating the dogmas of the Faith, in brazen effort to uproot and destroy all relations between man and the Divinity! While, on the other hand, and this according to the same Apostle (St. Paul), it is the distinguishing mark of Antichrist, man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God, raising himself above all that is called God; in such wise that although he cannot utterly extinguish in himself all knowledge of God, he has despised God’s majesty and, as it were, made of the universe a temple wherein he himself is to be adored… Hence it follows that to restore all things in Christ and to lead men back to submission to God is one and the same aim. But if our desire to obtain this is to be fulfilled, we must use every means and exert all our energy to bring about the utter disappearance of the enormous and detestable wickedness, so characteristic of our time: the substitution of man for God»30.

This truly papal line, however, stands opposite to that liberal Paul VI, whom, at Sydney, on December 2, 1970, stated to the press: «We have trust in man. We believe in the store of goodness in everyone’s heart. We know the motives of justice, truth, renewal, progress and brotherhood that lie at the root of so many wonderful undertakings, and even of so many protests and, unfortunately, of violence at times… Sow the seed of a true ideal… an ideal to make him grow to his true stature as one created in the likeness of God, an ideal to drive him to surpass himself unceasingly, in order to build jointly the brotherly city to which all aspire and to which all have a right. The Catholic Church, especially since the fresh impulse of “revision” that sprang from the Council, is going out to encounter this very man whose service is your ambition».

Sure, Paul VI, in his utterance, had forgotten what is written in the Holy Scripture: “Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD”31. And also: “For without Me, you can do nothing”32.

Paul VI, instead, at the Angelus of February 7, 1971, on the occasion of a space mission, composed a “Hymn to the Glory of Man”, as if to counter the Hymn to “Christ King of the Centuries”: «Honor to man; honor to thought; Honor to science; Honor to the synthesis of scientific and organizing ability of man who unlike other animals, knows how to give his spirit and his manual dexterity these instruments of conquest. Honor to man, King of the Earth, and today Prince of heaven. Honor to the living being that we are, wherein is reflected the image of God and which, in its dominion over things, obeys the biblical command: increase and rule».

Here, too, the error of Paul VI is that of the supremacy of the human, his giving value to all that is humanly appreciable, which is of man, “center and crown”, whereas the Church of Christ is always been, yes, at the service of man, to the extent of heroism, even, but this, however, always in view of the service to God and of the salvation of the souls.

Therefore, Paul VI’s anthropocentrism, his orientation upon Man, rather than upon God, brings to mind those insane words of the Pastoral Constitution “Gaudium et Spes“33, which says: “All things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown”; words that certainly do not echo the “Charitas Christi urget nos!” (The Charity of Christ drives us!). Regrettably, it seems more than evident that in Paul VI man comes before God, even though, among his citations of the Gospels, he would often repeat the following one: “Inasmuch as ye have done unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done unto me”34. By all means! But what one does to one’s neighbor, has to be of a quality acceptable to Jesus. And this cannot definitely be the fondling of man’s pride, boasting of his false science, encouraging his rejection of any dependence on God. He should never have stopped thinking that his vocation required him to preach, at all times, the supremacy of the supernatural and the Christian view condensed in the “Beatitudes”: “Blessed are the poor in spirit… the meek… the peacemakers… they that suffer persecution for justice’s sake…”35. He had no business, therefore, in boasting about his being an “expert in humanity”, as he qualified himself at the UN (October 4, 1965)… and to say: «The mission of Christianity is a mission of friendship among the peoples of the earth, a mission of understanding, of encouragement, of promotion, of elevation, and, let us say it one more time, a mission of salutations»36. A “vision”, however, which is far from that of the Gospel, and certainly does not reflect the Words of Jesus: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword”37… and for this he was always a “sign of contradiction”. But Paul VI manages to aggravate his own utterance: «Man… aware of terrible doubts… We have to convey to him a message that We believe liberating. AND WE, WE believe all the more we are authorized to propose it to him because we are wholly human. It is the message of MAN to man»38.

Here is the “New Gospel”, all human, of Paul VI! Even speaking about his “missionary travels”, he will confess: «We ourselves have no other intention on our various journeys to all points of the globe. What we try to do with all our poor strength is to work for the bettering of men, with the aim of bringing about the reign of peace and the triumph of justice, without which no peace is enduring»39.

29 Matthew 4, 10.

30 “E Supremi Apostolatus” of October 4, 1903

31 Jeremiah 17, 5.

32 John 15, 5.

33 “Gaudium et Spes”, n. 12.

34 Matthew 25, 40.

35 Matthew 5, 3-5-9-10

36 At Bethlehem, January 6, 1964.

37 Matthew 10, 34.

38 At Bethlehem, January 6, 1964.

39 In Indonesia, December 3, 1970.

Now, these are his own words: “no other intention” than that of working for human causes; therefore, not as a custodian of the Faith, but as an “expert humanist”! his faith, that is, is in man. That is why he regarded Christianity as mere “humanism”. For that reason, after his “Ecclesiam Suam”, the Church must not convert anymore, because “The Church makes Herself dialogue…” a “dialogue” that characterized His Pontificate40; a “dialogue” that would no longer consist in preaching the Gospel, but rather in working for a peaceful coexistence between good and evil, between true and false.

«… A great undertaking, well worthy of reuniting every man of good will into an immense and irresistible conspiracy toward this integral development of man and this concurrent development of humanity, to which we have dared exhort him in the name of a “integral humanism”, in our encyclical “Populorum Progressio“»41. Poor Jesus! This “Vicar on Earth” of Yours must have completely forgotten Your command: “But seek ye first the Kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you”42.

But here is another proof of the basis upon which Paul VI considered that peace could be established: «Let us venture to use a word, which may itself appear ambiguous, but which, given the thought its deep significance demands, is ever splendid and supreme. The world is ‘love’: love for man, as the highest principle of the terrestrial order… Peace is a product of love: true love, human love… If we want peace, we must recognize the necessity of building it upon foundations more substantial… True peace must be founded upon justice, upon a sense of the intangible dignity of man, upon the recognition of an abiding and happy equality between men, upon the basic principle of human brotherhood, that is, of the respect and love due to each man, because he is man»43.

So, the “more solid basis” to achieve the peace, is not the respect of God and of His laws, but “the sense of an intangible human dignity”, the “recognition of an abiding and happy equality between men”, based “upon the basic principle of human brotherhood…” And yet, Jesus had said: “Without Me, you can do nothing”44.

But Paul VI, instead, speaking at FAO (Rome based UN Food and Agriculture Organization), had this to say: «As for you, it is man you succor, it is man you sustain. How can you act against him, when you exist for him and could not succeed but with him?»45. Even this witty remark of Paul VI’s seems another sort of “profession of faith” in man, a repetition of what he had said already at the UN: «We bring to this organization the suffrage of our recent Predecessors, that of the entire Catholic Episcopate, and our own, convinced as we are that this organization represents the obligatory path of modern civilization and of world peace… The peoples of the earth turn to the United Nations as the last hope of concord and peace. We presume to present here, together with our own, their tribute to honor and of hope»46.

This is the essence of the thought of Paul VI. He believes in the power of man, even atheistic man, anti-Christian, and Satanic, as is the United Nations. He believes in him more than he believes in the supernatural means: Grace, Prayer, Sacraments… The great hope, to him, is man! He will say it also on January 27, 1974, on the occasion of the canonization of a Nun, Thérèse de Jésus Jornet Edibards: «… A Saint for our times; that which characterizes, indeed, our times, is the humanitarian aspect, social, and organized, marked by the cult for man». And at Bogotá, before a crowd of laborers waving revolutionary banners, he said: «You are a sign. You are an image. You are a mystery of the presence of the Christ (!!). The Sacrament of the Eucharist offers us His hidden Presence, live and real; but You too are a sacrament, a sacred image of the Lord in our midst»47. Montinian rambling speeches! As in this other euphoric lyricism of his, commenting on the trip from the earth to the moon. It is another chant from which transpires all of his “cult of man”:

«Honor to man; honor to thought; honor to science; honor to human daring; honor to the synthesis of scientific activity and organizing ability of man who unlike other animals (?!) knows how to give his spirit and his manual dexterity these instruments of conquest; honor to man, king of the earth and, today, prince of heaven…»48. But we, instead, shall continue to say: “Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen”49.

40 “Ecclesiam Suam”, n. 60.

41 Address for the 25th anniversary of the UN, October 4, 1970.

42 Matthew 6, 33.

43 Peace Day Message, November 14, 1970.

44 John 15, 5.

45 To FAO, November 16, 1970.

46 Address to the UN, October 4, 1965.

47 At Bogotà – D.C. September 1968, n. 1524-1544.

48 Angelus of February 7, 1971.

49 I Timothy 1, 17.

“RELIGION” OF MASONRY

– «Freemasonry informs us that there is only one true religion and therefore a natural one: the cult of humanity». (“The World Freemasonry”, gen. mag. 1870).

– «The cornerstone of any system of Freemasonry is opposed to the ascetic and transcendental feeling which carries men beyond the present life and grants that one considers himself as pilgrim on earth. Until this non-system is destroyed by the hammer of Masonry, we will have a society of poor deluded creatures, who have sacrificed everything to achieve happiness in a future existence». (The Mason, Mauro Macchi in “Masonic Review”, February 16, 1874).

– «Why tell the man well – according to Masonic principles – his conduct should not seek out or control over his reason (…); should not envisage the moral law as a command from Above, from an other-worldly existence, supernatural, which we must bow to. (…). Eliminate the supernatural, morality is Masonic and purely naturalistic, human rights and human duties, goals and human struggles are related to earth…». (The Mason, Thomas Ventura).

– «The Masonic morality is neither Christian nor Jewish, or Mohammedan. Freemasonry proclaims certain principles on which moralists of all countries and all religions agree and strive to harmonize these views that are sometimes contradictory but only in appearance». (The Mason, Savior Farina).

– «… One wonders if Freemasonry is not a religion, I say clearly that Masonry is a religion». (The Mason, Gorel Porciatti).

– «(Freemasonry is) the largest, most beautiful, the noblest, the most civilized of all religions”, because whoever has asked to enter this Temple, understands that he left another Temple, where they worshiped false gods and liars». (The Mason, Ugo Lenzi).

«Love not the world, nor the things that are in the world! If any man love the world, the charity of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, is the concupiscence of the flesh, and the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life, which is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the concupiscence thereof…»
(John 2: 15-17)

CHAPTER II

HIS “OPENING TO THE WORLD”

It is now clear that the “new Church” of Paul VI has broken with the past: «The religion of the God who became man has met the religion of man who makes himself God»1.

There is, by now, “an osmosis” between the Church and the world2; and that is, an inter-penetration; a reciprocal influence. And yet, the Apostle St. John had written, instead, «The whole world lieth in wickedness»3. And Jesus had said, «He that is not with Me is against Me”4.

Even Leo XIII, in his encyclical “Humanum Genus“, had written: «The race of man… separated into two diverse and opposite parts, of which the one steadfastly contends for truth and virtue, the other of those things which are contrary to virtue and to truth. The one is the kingdom of God on earth, namely, the true Church of Jesus Christ… The other is the kingdom of Satan»5.

But Paul VI, throughout his Pontificate, attempted to reconcile these two irreconcilable things; hence his contradictions, his ambiguities, precisely on account of his… “Love to the world”. «We have certainly intended to talk of the severity of the Saints toward the ills of the world. Many are still familiar with the books of asceticism that contain a globally negative judgment upon earthly corruption. But it is also certain that we do live in a different spiritual climate, having been invited, especially by the recent Council, to bring to the modern world an optimistic look towards its values, its achievements… The celebrated Constitution ‘Gaudium et Spes‘ is in its whole an encouragement toward this new spiritual approach»6.

This utterance of Paul VI’s would seem a clear invitation to abandon “the severity of the Saints”, the “books of asceticism”, in favor of this “new spiritual approach”, looking “with more optimism to the world”, in conclusion: to come to a positive judgment “about the corruption in the world”. And this because we live, today, in a “different spiritual climate”.

And so, Paul VI’s mentality was one of “apertura al mondo” (Opening to the World).

It can also be demonstrated by reading the texts of the “International Seminar”, organized at Brescia, by the “Paul VI” Institute7. Cardinal Paul Poupard, in fact, in his introduction recalled a “question” Paul VI was asking himself: «What consciousness has the Church gained about Herself, after twenty centuries of history and after countless experiences and studies and treatises?». And here is the brief answer given by Montini himself: «The Church is communion. It is the communion of the Saints». “It seems to me – continued Cardinal Poupard – the specific contribution of Paul VI at Vatican II Council and the elaboration of its “Magna Charta” and the doctrinal Constitution “Lumen Gentium” is this global vision of the Church, seen as a “Mystery of communion”. The original contribution of Pope Montini to the Council – continued the cardinal – was that of providing a theological synthesis and conferring a cultural form on the Giovannean project of a Church “in line” with the new times and “renewed” in Her spirituality and in Her missionary drive”. Even the extraordinary Synod on the Council, in its final report, emphasized that “the ecclesiology of communion is the central and fundamental idea in the documents of the Council”, and that “it cannot be reduced into mere organizational or power-related issues”. «Therefore – continued Cardinal Poupard – the ecclesiology of communion must generate in the Church a style of communion at all levels, between faithful and priests, between priests and bishops, between the bishops and the Pope. But even for the Church “ad extra”, this style of communion, that is, of “opening”, of respect and understanding, will increasingly characterize the action of the Church toward culture as a whole and toward all men, including non-believers». Even Jean Pierre Torrell, of the University of Friburg, in that same “conversation”, at Brescia, said «The Church takes shape, in this manner, as an incarnation lasting in time and as well as communion». Therefore, Pope Montini would have had an “opening to the world” in continuous evolution (= relativism), and would have wanted, for this, a new conception of a Church as “communion” between all men of the Church as well as with those “ad extra”. And so, this was the “original contribution,” Cardinal Poupard saw in the Modernist Paul VI at Vatican II, with the crucial contribution of the neo-Modernists. Good for us that the above mentioned Cardinal also recalled that Montini was very familiar with the French culture, which much contributed to the formation of such a view of the Church. In fact, Montini had read and studied (?) their books: that of Jesuit priest Henri de Lubac: “Meditation Upon the Church“; that of Hamer: “The Church is Communion“; that of Congar: “True and False Reform of the Church“; that of Maritain: “The Church of Christ“; etc…

1 Council’s Closing Address, December 7, 1965.

2 “Eucharistic Congress” of Pisa, June 7, 1965.

3 1 John 5, 19.

4 Matthew 12, 30.

5 Leo XIII, “Humanum Genus” 1884.

6 General audience, July 3, 1974.

7 It was founded with the precise purpose of promoting the “scientific” study (!) of the figure of Pope Montini. It was held from September of 19-22, 1986. There attended 140 scholars, historians and theologians from various parts of the world.

And so, that “new ecclesiology” of Montini’s came, as regular “foreign merchandise”, from France. But now, this was nothing new in a Montini whom, unprepared in theology – he never attended a regular class in philosophy, or theology – adapted so well to his “Modernist mind” already imbued with those Modernist ideas, having long frequented the drawing-room of Tommaso Gallarati Scotti, a fiery advocate of Modernism in Italy, and having had, for his favorite authors, a Maritain of the first hour, with his socialistic conception, a Bernanos, subsidizer of the “international brigades” during Spain’s Civil War – although aware of the destroyed churches and of the thousands of Bishops, Priests, Monks and Nuns massacred – a De Lubac, with his Catholicism reduced into a mere “humanism”, and so forth and so on.

Authors, that is, who afford us to say that the Montini’s “choices”, from priest to Pope, were always consistent8! And so to Paul VI, the “ecclesiology of communion” truly was “as the incarnation lasting in time and as well as a communion”, that is, a continuous evolution among all of its members and even for those “ad extra”. This concept of “Church-Communion” was thus that “original contribution” attributable to Paul VI. And yet we would be tempted to observe that never was there less “communion” than today, despite the ongoing chatter about it, not seldom out of turn. «There often is, in this holy and marvelous word, a bogus sound, or however ambiguous, which reveals a use of convenience, and therefore biased. The “communion”, too, is subjected to polemic. It serves a cause for which it was not born, and in front of which falls into contradiction. There are the “theorists” of this “communion”: those who distinguish it from the community; those who found it with the community; those who finalize the one to the other»9. More clear and to the point, on this subject “Church-Communion”, on this “new ecclesiology”, that is, is Cardinal Ratzinger, in his “Ratzinger Report“10, under the title: “At the Root of the Crisis: the Idea of Church”. Writes the Cardinal: «My impression is that, tacitly, one is losing the authentically Catholic reality of the “Church”, without rejecting it expressly».

8 We cite an example: as a cardinal, at Milan. For his “Mission of Milan”, in the Fall of 1957, Montini called, as speakers, don Mazzolari, Father Balducci, Father Turoldo, Cardinal Lercaro and the like. (“Paul VI – Images of a Pontificate”, A.A.V.V., Logos Editions, Rome 1978, p. 57).

9 Monsignor Brunero Gherardini: “The Church Arch of the Alliance. Her Genesis, Her Paradox, Her Powers, Her Service”.

10 Joseph Ratzinger, “Report on the Faith”, Chapter III, p. 45-54.

Now, would this be, therefore, the “original contribution” of Pope Montini to the Council? Concealing the “mystery” – “communion”, in the fashion of Loisy, the Father of Modernism, in “Autor d’un petit livre“, pretending to be refuting Harnack… and as the Modernists are still doing today.

«This term of “Church-Communion” is an “error” – continues Cardinal Ratzinger11 – an error that led to the practical negation of the authentic concept of “obedience”, because the concept of an authority that has Her legitimacy (focus or center) in God, is rejected». Hence the Cardinal concludes, by saying: «Real reform (or “renovation”) is not to strive to put up new facades, but rather (contrary to what certain ecclesiologies think), real ‘REFORM’ is to endeavor to detach ourselves, to the greatest extent possible, from what is ours, so that what appears is that which is His, of Christ. It is a truth the Saints knew well, as they in fact reformed the Church profoundly, not by predisposing “plans” for new structures, but by reforming themselves»12. It is precisely what Paul VI failed to do, when he chose instead to order “new structures”, arbitrary, over his brainy conceptions, which substituted the very “Constitution” wanted by Jesus and then clearly expressed in His Gospels.

11 As above, p. 49.

12 Idem.

***

After which, it is no longer difficult to understand the reason for his opening toward the modern world and his “sincere love to his time”. And it is no use asking oneself what Paul VI intended by “world”, for he certainly did not intend the material universe, with its sky, its land, plants and animals, etc., but rather, by “world” he positively intended the number of men with their own ideas, customs, way of life. Hence his “opening to the world” could but be that which, in the New Testament, particularly in St. Paul and St. John, in the entire Patristic literature and in the writings of all of the Saints has a contemptuous meaning, since the world is the “kingdom of sin”, as opposed, that is, to the “Kingdom of God”; hence the “spirit of the world” is in conflict with the “Spirit of God”13; hence the “elements of the world” are like “bondages” keeping man tied down to sin14.

Now, if the devil is the “prince of this world”15, the Kingdom of Jesus Christ cannot be of this world16; rather, Jesus is hated by this “world”17. Consequently, like Jesus, even the Christian is not of this world, for in him dwells the Spirit of Truth which the world cannot receive18. That is why, in his First Letter, St. John Evangelist says: “I write unto you, little children…Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him; for all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever”19. And St. Paul writes: “But God forbid that I should glory, save in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world20. And I could go on for quite a while, as the word “world” in the New Testament is a theological term in the strict sense of the word: “but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world”21; “For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our Faith”22. Supernatural Faith, that is! He that lacks it “loves the world” and the world loves him in return. And Jesus reaffirms this detachment from the world in His prayer to the Father for His Apostles, too: “I have given them Thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world”23. Thus “Opening to the World”, in the theological-Christian language, can only mean “Opening to Satan”, “Prince of This World”. Now, this is the very essence of Modernism. It is the Modernists, in fact, who call for a Church opened to the world through integral humanism, through the ignorance of the supernatural, through the reduction of the four Gospels and of the whole New Testament into a popular, profane book, almost a myth, born of the conscience of the early Christian communities. What to say, then, of Paul VI, whose mind was certainly immersed in a “spiritual climate” quite different from the evangelical one, which reads: “Woe unto the world because of offences!”24, while, on the contrary, Paul VI did away from that “severity”, from those “negative judgments” of Christ against the world? At the outset of the “Second Session” of the Council, in fact, he had said already: «The world must be aware that the Church regards it with profound sympathy, with genuine admiration, sincerely disposed not to subdue it, but to serve it; not to loathe it, but to value it; not to condemn it, but to sustain it and rescue it»25.

13 1 Corinthians 2.12-2; 2 Corinthians 7, 10.

14 Galatians 4. 3. 8; Colossians 2. 20.

15 John. 12. 31, 16. 11; 2 Corinthians 4, 4.

16 John 8-23; 16. 28; 18, 36.

17 John 7, 7; 15. 18.

18 John 15. 19; 17, 14 – John 2. 15.

19 I John 2. 12-17.

20 Galatians 6, 14.

21 John 16, 33.

22 I John 5. 4.

23 John 17, 14 and V, 16.

24 Matthew 18, 7.

25 Opening Address, 2d Session, September 29, 1963.

Even these words betray the “mission” of the Church of Christ, which is to place the men of this world under the yoke of Christ. And then, is it the duty of Bishops and Priests, perhaps, “to give value” to the world? Man is after earthly values on his own, while the Shepherds of souls must preach, “opportune et importune”, that those human values are a nothingness before God and eternity, as the Apostle Paul had already preached: “I count all things… but dung, that I may win Christ26; that Christ who had said: “Whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple”27.

Paul VI, instead, goes on to repeat: «Our testimony is a sign of the approach of the Church toward the modern world: an approach made up of attention, of understanding, of admiration, and of friendship»28. A language back to front, therefore, of that used by St. James: “know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? 29. Even at the opening of Session IV of the Council, Paul VI has said: «The Council offers the Church, and Us especially, a comprehensive view of the world: will the Church, and will we be able to do anything but to look at the world and to love it? This look at the world shall be one of the fundamental acts of the Session that is about to begin: once again and above all, love…»30.

Words that sound like a capitulation of a Church before the world. But Paul VI’s excitement grows unchecked: «A wave of affection and admiration flowed out from the Council over the modern world of humanity… The modern world’s values were not only respected but also honored (!!), its efforts sustained, its aspirations purified and blessed»31. Now, this “brimming over with love and admiration” for the world, whose “values” he “honors”, goes also counter to the Scriptures, which say: “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him”32. Nevertheless, Paul VI continued to disseminate his “love” for the world, presenting the reconciliation of the Church as an absolute evolution, an enrichment of the Catholic doctrine: «It seemed interesting to us to note some “moreaux” aspects of the Council, which we might define as characteristic, and, consequently, new and modern… One of these teachings, which changes our way of thinking, and, even more, our practical conduct, regards the view we Catholics must hold of the world in which we live. How does the Church regard the world today? This vision, the Council has broadened to us… broadened to the point of changing substantially our judgment and approach before the world. The doctrine of the Church, in fact, has grown richer with a more thorough knowledge of Her being and of Her mission»33.

26 Philippians 3, 8.

27 Luke 14, 33.

28 Special Audience, June 8, 1964 – Actes Pontificaux, Bellamin Editions (MT1), n. 139, p. 21.

29 Jacob 4, 4.

30 Council’s IV Session, September 14, 1965

31 Council’s Closing Address, December 7, 1965.

32 I John 2, 15.

33 Audience of March 5, 1969.

Hence to Paul VI, the Catholic approach before the World should “change”, “broaden”, leaving of Tradition but a few marks of paint. He himself reiterates it: «… The framework of this encounter between Church and World remains that of the Gospel. As a consequence, its fundamental theological and moral principles are the traditional and constitutional framework of Christian morality. But, in addition, the Church accepts, recognizes and serves the world such as it presents itself to Her today. She does not reject the formulas of the synthesis Church-world of the past… but… the Church, in Christ and like Christ, loves the world of today. She lives, She speaks, and She acts for it…»34.

Here, Paul VI is saying that, after the Council, the Church recognizes, yes, the eternal conflict between Gospel and World, but, “in addition”, She similarly recognizes the new approach, opposed to Tradition, and that is to say, She “recognizes, serves, and loves the world”, “such as the world presents itself today”. Doublespeak, that is. Two irreconcilable approaches. All that is left to do is to repeat the verdict of Christ: “No man can serve two masters”35. That is to say: either one loves Jesus and His Gospel, or one loves the World, loathing Jesus and His Gospel. But Paul VI goes on to say: «This approach (of alliance “Church-World”) must become ‘characteristic’ in the Church of today; here, She stirs and draws in Her heart new apostolic energies (!!). She does not seek Her own way, She does not places Herself outside the existential situation of the world, but She shares spiritually… with Her patient and accommodating charity… that charity that “bears anything, believes anything, hopes anything, endures anything”36»37.

Here you have a typical example of how one could make a wicked use of the “Sacred Texts”. Under the cover that “charity pardons anything… puts up with anything…” one invokes tolerance toward the vices of the world, too. Not so did Jesus, however, when to the Pharisees, proud and duplicitous, He hollered: “O generation of vipers… Whited Sepulchers”38.

Sure, God is merciful toward the man that falls because of his weakness, but then repents, whereas He is terrible toward the pride and sensuality persisting in the world. Paul VI, instead, in the same Audience, had said: «This supposes “another mind”, which we may similarly qualify as “new”: the Church frankly admits the values proper of temporal realities; She recognizes, that is, that the world holds riches that he realizes in undertakings, he expresses in the realm of thought and arts, that he is deserving of praises, etc., in his being, in his becoming, in his own domain, even if he were not baptized, if he were a profane, a layman, a secular… “The Church – says the Council – recognizes all that is good in the social dynamism of today”39»40.

34 Idem.

35 Matthew 6, 24.

36 I Corinthians 13, 4-7.

37 Audience of March 5, 1969.

38 Matthew 12, 34; Matthew 23, 27-33.

39 “Gaudium et Spes”, n. 42.

40 Audience of March 5, 1969.

Hence, the Church should become “neutral”, and, therefore, “praise the profane, lay, secular world”. But then, do the severe words of St. Paul: «If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema»41, still bear any import today? And what consequence does the even graver and decisive Word of Jesus, carry: «For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?»42. There is matter for reflection. But reflection was also Paul VI’s obligation. And why on earth, then, would he not remember that: “Woe unto me, if I preach not the gospel! 43 of St. Paul? But, perhaps, to Paul VI, that traditional teaching had become a negative teaching, one deserving of discredit. «This approach, full of caution and boldness, which the Church manifests today toward the present world, must modify and shape our mind of faithful Christians, still immersed in the whirling of modern profane life… We must explain, with much caution and precision, the difference between the positive vision of the worldly values the Church is presenting to Her faithful today, and the negative vision, without annulling what of true is in the latter, that the wisdom and asceticism of the Church have so many times taught us with regard to the contempt of the world… But we wish to conclude making it our own and recommending this optimistic vision the Council is presenting to us, about the contemporary world…»44. These are more of his… fraudulent words! “The wisdom and asceticism of the Church” – said he, in fact – has taught us, for centuries, “a negative vision” of the worldly values. Today, while not denying “what is true” in that “con tempt of the world”, the Church presents to us a “differentiated” vision of the world; rather, a “positive vision”. Regrettably, this obsession of his became also his line of pastoral conduct, as he appointed, for example, the Bishops in consonance with his own mindset. Cardinal Ratzinger confirms it in his book, “Rapporto sulla Fede“: «In the first years following Vatican II Council, the candidate to the episcopate seemed to be a priest primarily “opened to the world”, and, indeed, this prerequisite topped the list. After the 1968 Movement, with the worsening of the crisis, it was discovered, not seldom through bitter experiences, that what was needed were bishops open to the world, and yet concurrently capable of standing up to the world and to its harmful tendencies, in order to heal them, contain them, alert the faithful against them. Many bishops have harshly experienced, in their own dioceses, how times have really changed in comparison with the not-so-critical (a euphemism?) optimism of the immediate post-Council»45.

What then? Wasn’t Paul VI, too, supposed to be aware of the irreducible conflict between the two visions of “Christ” and “World”? And why, then, his stubbornness in continually reiterating that, today, there is instead a blissful alliance between them, almost ignoring that, on the contrary, there are no real values in the “worldly realities” which St. Paul categorically “counts as dung”46.

Nonetheless, in that “Conversation” at Brescia’s “Paul VI” Institute, it was insisted upon the continuity of John XXIII’s Pontificate and that of Paul VI, and the opening to the world. Cardinal Poupard – as we already mentioned – underscored that «the original contribution of Pope Montini to the Council was that of providing a theological synthesis (?!) as well as conferring a cultural form upon John XXIII’s project of a Church in line with the new times, and renewed in Her effort». And the Jesuit Father, Professor Giacomo Martina, reported that «Paul VI’s concern lies… above all, in emphasizing the element that characterizes and ensures the continuity between the two pontificates: the opening toward the modern world and the sincere love to their own time». Of this “mens” [“mind” or “mindset,”] there was also a confirmation in that other Convention, promoted by the Marche Region Institute “J. Maritain” on the theme: “The Road to Vatican II“. The current Secretary Monsignor Camillo Ruini attended the “Convention” in representation of the Italian Episcopal Conference. Well, «The theme – wrote Baldoni – focused particularly on the figure of Pope Roncalli and on the opening to the world, on the fact that this exceptional Pope had just wanted to look out the window». Monsignor Capovilla, however, saw to it to reveal – for the first time – to «have seen the face of the Pontiff furrowed with tears, on the verge of his death, on account of the fact that some were affirming that he had set into motion a process that would not have been for the good of the Church»! The “weeping” of Pope Roncalli, demonstrates he had not foreseen the negative effects of his decisions, of his apostolic actions (!!) made without consulting his Secretary of State, Cardinal Tardini, or any of the Cardinals responsible for the various jurisdictional Congregations, particularly that of the Holy Office, whereas he paid heed, of preference, to his troubadour-counselor, his seditious personal Secretary, Monsignor Capovilla, so much so that Cardinal Tardini came to offer his resignation from his post, and Cardinal Giuseppe Siri, then head of the CEI (Italian Episcopal Conference), protested with the Pope for Monsignor Capovilla’s unusual intrusiveness and rash behavior, although to no avail47.

Paul VI, however, after the “Pacem in Terris”, flung open the doors of the Council to his “apertura al mondo” (opening to the world). One has only to read the “Gaudium et Spes” to dispel any doubt. His “love for the world”, his “cult of man”, were but a counter-altar to the straightforward affirmation of Jesus, “My kingdom is not of this world”48.

***

41 I Corinthians 16, 22.

42 Matthew 16, 26.

43 Corinthians 9, 16.

44 Audience of March 5, 1969

45 Joseph Ratzinger, “Report on the Faith”, p. 65 and subsequent.

46 Philippians 3, 8.

47 Pope Montini, instead, rewarded that hypnotizer, at Venice, of Cardinal Roncalli, and then of Pope John XXIII, for his services, appointing him Archbishop of Chieti, whence he was kicked out, however, by the local Authorities and hastily transferred to the Basilica of Loreto.

48 John 18. 36.

Sure, it was a real utopia that nourished his agitated soul, his “playing Hamlet”, his obsession of reconciling, at any cost, the Church with the “modern world”, i.e. with modern philosophy, subjective and immanent, and “modern culture”, steeped in subjectivism and immanentence.

What is clear, however, was always his “cult of man”, his “love for the world”, which nourished his “chimeras”, specifically: – Humanity is “marching” toward a new world, toward an ideal society in which freedom, brotherhood, and equality shall reign; in which the perfect respect of “Man’s Rights”, and the “Great Democracy” shall be achieved, fulfilling the dream of the French Revolution.

– “Universal peace” shall rule, thanks to the principles of natural morals, accessible to all. All that is needed is to stir and foster “the conscience of humanity”.

– All the forces of the men of goodwill (including the “reformed” Church) must unite to form this “new world” and this “new ideal society”.

– The Church, however, in this construction of the “worldly paradise”, should have a mere “supplementary” role, as She would be complementing the role of the “United Nations”. In any case, the means of the natural order would stand above the supernatural order. But the “glory of God” and the salvation of the souls”, is a theme Paul VI, in his writings and speeches, has nearly forgotten. «It is the leavening of the Gospel that has aroused and continues to arouse in man’s heart the need for irrepressible dignity»49.

Hence to Paul VI, the Gospel seems to be a mere instrument, almost the “pretext” for a sort of world political revolution that must lead to the age of the Kingdom of “Man’s Rights”, proclaimed by the French Revolution of 1789. In fact, in an address to the “Diplomatic Corps”, Paul VI had already hinted at his belief: «We have trust in human reason… One day, reason will be the last word»50. Luckily, that day shall never come. And yet ever since that 1789 this trust in human reason is being preached. Nothing is more ludicrous, however, since this human reason has been severed from its root, God, and placed at the service of the baseness of human nature. That is why any catastrophe is and will be possible.

But Paul VI, even in this other statement, said: «The Church attempts to adapt to the language, customs, and tendencies of the men of our time, all absorbed by the rapidity of material evolution and so demanding for their individual particularities. This opening is in the spirit of the Church…»51.

Pius X, blessed predecessor of Paul VI, on May 27, 1914, warning a group of new cardinals on adapting a certain spirit of adaptation to the world, had said: «We are, alas, in a time in which certain ideas of reconciliation of the Faith with the modern spirit are all too easily accepted; ideas that lead the way farther than what one might be led to think, not only toward a weakening, but also toward a loss of the Faith…». But Paul VI, perhaps, no longer remembered that Christianity has its center in the Cross of Christ… as he followed in the footsteps of Rousseau, who affirmed that “man is good”, which clashes entirely with the Christian doctrine that affirms, on the contrary, “man was born a sinner”, hence, as Jesus says, «None is good, save one, that is, God. None is good but God alone»52.

But then, how is Paul VI’s approach of “opening to the world”, steadfast and stubborn to the point of saying that «… It is our duty to promote the formation of a mentality and practice which would best suit the true moral progress of man and society»53?

And yet, even the Protestant theologian, Karl Barth, posed the question, on that “opening to the world”, on the part not only of Protestantism of any chapter, but also of post-Conciliar Roman Catholicism: «With the windows opened onto the world – he wrote – haven’t our “Protestants”, as well as the last Council, gone too far? When too many windows are built and opened, the house ceases to be a house… the concept of “Church” could be broadened to the extent that it would fade out into the dark haze of an unconscious Christianity»54.
Paul VI, however, continued to pursue a mission rather temporal than spiritual, in order to edify, in fact, that “New World”, that “ideal society”, that “great universal brotherhood”. «All of us, Churches included, are involved in the birth of a “new world”. God… in His love for man, organizes the movements of history for the progress of humanity and in view of a new earth and new heavens, wherein justice shall be perfect»55.

And again: «The Catholic Church urges all of Her sons to undertake, together with all men of goodwill of every race and nation, this peaceful crusade for the well-being of man… in order to “establish a global community, united and brotherly»56.

Words in the wind! And a dream, it was, that “progress of humanity” of his which in reality is ever quaking with revolutionary wars, with all sorts of hatred, as if taking flight from reality and from the Christian duty of carrying the inevitable cross of injustice «It is impossible that scandals should not come: but woe to him through whom they come»57.

49 “Populorum Progressio”, 26 March 1967, n. 32.

50 “Le Courrier de Rome”, April 25, 1970.

51 Speech at Milan, September 1958.

52 Luke 18, 19.

53 “L’Osservatore Romano” of October 22, 1970.

54 Karl Barth, “Renewal and Unity of the Church”, Rome, 1969, Silva Editore.

55 Address to the Australians, November 30, 1970.

56 Ibidem

57 Luke 17, 1.

And this is because evil, injustice, and suffering shall always dwell with us. That is why the Church has always preached the extraordinary value of suffering, continuation of the redemption of Christ: «I fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the Church»58. As for that “peaceful crusade for the well-being of a new world”, then, the Cross of Christ should give way to the Masonic movement, which similarly preaches a global brotherhood. Therefore, Paul VI insists: «Isolation is no longer an option. The hour has come of the great solidarity among men, toward the establishment of a global and fraternal community»59.

Could one not think, at this point: if the whole world has to change, should religion not change, too? If between the reality of life and Christianity – especially Catholicism – there is disagreement, misunderstanding, indifference, mutual hostility, how could Christianity claim to have retained any influence upon today’s life? Is that why Vatican II called for “reforms” and “revisions”? But why, then, did Jesus say, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away”? 60 And if that is how things stand, the Gospel shall always be the same, regardless of world changes. And the doctrine of Jesus shall be always “A sign which shall be contradicted” 61.

But Paul VI continued to believe that it were possible to put together “a pagan world” and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Perhaps he believed the influence of Christianity depended upon a reformation “in the sense of the world”, even if this reform of the Church and its doctrine, in order to avoid offending the sensibility of the world, would mean “apostasy” – a “change of religion”! «Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God»62. And that, even Paul VI should have known! Rather than fancying a Masonic-like humanitarian and social philanthropic organization. Quite the contrary! «The Church, although respecting the jurisdiction of the Nations, must offer Her help to promote a global humanism, I mean to say, an integral development of man as a whole and of each and every man… Placing Herself at the forefront of social action, She must direct all of Her efforts to sustaining, encouraging, and driving the initiatives that operate toward the integral promotion of man»63.

Hence, to Paul VI, the Church must no longer focus upon the evangelization of the peoples for the salvation of the souls, but rather “spare no effort” toward the promotion of a “full humanism”, possibly taking up the vanguard of the social action. The encyclical “Populorum Progressio” was precisely a push toward that mindset of his: «The fight against poverty, urgent and necessary, is not enough. It is a question of building a human community wherein men can live truly human lives, free from discrimination on account of race, religion or nationality, free from servitude to other men or to natural forces they cannot yet control satisfactorily. It involves building a human community wherein freedom is not an idle word, wherein the needy Lazarus can sit down with the rich man at the same banquet table»64.

Building a world, that is, wherein every man might live a fully “human” life. «They strive to learn more, and have more so that they might increase their personal worth. And yet, at the same time, a large number of them live amid conditions that frustrate these legitimate desires»65. Perhaps here, again, Paul VI overlooked Jesus’ maxim, when he said, “It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God”66. But Paul VI’s utopia rested upon his faith on man. «We have trust in man. We believe in the store of goodness in everyone’s heart. We know the motives of justice, truth, renewal, progress, and brotherhood that lie at the root of so many wonderful undertakings, and even of so many protests and, unfortunately, of violence at times. It is up to you not to flatter man but to make him aware of his worth and capabilities…»67.

58 Colossians 1, 24.

59 Address to the Australians – D. C. January 3, 1971, n. 1577.

60 Matthew 24, 35.

61 Luke 2, 34.

62 James 4, 4.

63 D. C. September 20, 1970, n. 1576, p. 1112-1114.

64 “Populorum Progressio”, n. 47.

65 “Populorum Progressio”, n. 6.

66 Luke 18, 25.

67 To the journalists, Sydney, Australia, December 2, 1970.

His words induce us to reflect upon the Words of the Scriptures: «Cursed is the strong man who trusts in man and has set up flesh as his arm»68.

On the contrary, in Paul VI’s writings always transpires, between the lines, his profound conviction that man, even without the Grace of God, by his own strength alone, can improve his human venture, establishing that global brotherhood that would wipe out every war, every poverty, and every injustice.

Sure, Paul VI does not deny that God is necessary in this process of improvement of man, but it is clear that his accent is not placed on this point, the only essential one. He puts his emphasis, rather, on the possibility of man as such. «When all is said and done, – says he – if man can, at length, do nothing without man, one can (instead), with him, do anything and succeed in anything, so much so that are indeed spirit and heart to first carry off the real victories»69.

Here, too, Paul VI forgets what Jesus said: “For without me ye can do nothing”70. And yet to him it does not seem to work this way. In his speeches, numerous, about “peace”, a call to a “universal human conscience”, or to some “principles of natural morals”, are never wanting. «Isn’t peace impossible; are man’s powers sufficient to secure it and maintain it? We would refrain, at this time, from offering exhaustive answers to this anguishing question which calls into play the most arduous theses of history’s thinking, to conclude merely with a word of Christ: “The things which are impossible with men are possible with God”71»72.

68 Jeremiah 17, 5.

69 Address to FAO, November 16, 1970.

70 John 15, 5.

71 Luke 18, 27.

72 October 4, 1966.

Here, too, however, Paul VI eludes the question, since he refuses to say whether or not God be necessary to the issue of world peace. On January 1, 1968, in fact, in his “Message” for the “Day of Peace”, he had said: «The subjective foundation of Peace is a new spirit that must animate coexistence between peoples, a new outlook on man… Much progress must yet be made to render this outlook universal and effective; a new pedagogy must educate the new generations to reciprocal respect between nations, to brotherhood between peoples… One cannot legitimately speak of peace where no recognition or respect is given to its solid foundations: sincerity, justice and love in the relations between states… between citizens..; the freedom of individuals and peoples, in all its expressions…». So that’s Paul VI’s idea of peace: a “new spirit”, a “new mind”, and a “new pedagogy”. And here are the “foundations”: to give a “new ideological education”. «Peace is the logical aim of the present world; it is the destiny of progress… There is need, today… A new ideological education, education for peace… Let us realize, men, our brothers, the greatness of this futuristic vision, and let us courageously undertake the first program: to educate ourselves for Peace»73. And furthermore: «Before being a policy, peace is a spirit… It forms, it takes hold of the consciences, in this philosophy of life each has to build for himself, as a light for his steps upon the paths of the world and in the experiences of life. That means, dearest brothers and sons, that peace requires an education. We affirm it, here, by the altar of Christ, as we celebrate the Holy Mass»74.

The light, therefore, guiding man’s steps, is no longer the Christ who said: «I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness»75: it is no longer this “philosophy of life”, Paul VI wanted. Said he, in fact: «One must succeed and banish war; it is human convenience demanding it»76. Hence man should repress vengeance, sacrifice his egoism, convert his hatred, in the name of this “human convenience demanding it”. Downright ludicrous! And yet, Paul VI insists: «Although difficult, it is indispensable (however), to acquire an authentic conception of peace… Peace is a most human thing. If we seek from where it really comes, we discover that it sinks its roots in the loyal sense of man (!!). A peace that is not born of the real cult of Man, is not essentially a peace»77. That’s it! “True peace” would thus be coming from the “Cult of Man”!

73 Peace Day Message, November 30, 1969.

74 Peace Day Allocution, January 1, 1970.

75 John 8, 12.

76 Peace Day Allocution, February 1, 1970.

77 December 16, 1971.

«We wish to give meaning to our lives. Life is worth the meaning we give to it, the direction we impart to it, the end we direct it to. What is the end? It is peace. Peace is a beautiful thing, yet difficult… It is the fruit of great struggles, of great plans, and, most of all, it is the fruit of justice: If you want Peace, work for Justice»78. But if peace is founded upon justice, what is justice founded upon? «Minds must be disarmed if we effectively wish to stop the recourse to arms which strike bodies. It is necessary to give to peace, that is to say to all men, the spiritual roots of a common form of thought and love… This interiorization of peace is true humanism, true civilization. Fortunately it has already begun. It is maturing as the world develops… The world is progressing towards its unity»79.

What an illusion, poor Paul VI! Is, perhaps, the “world marching toward his unity today?” Wars are up, conflicts have intensified, and guerrilla warfare is bloodying the population… And then, that his “common denominator” that provides a “common way of thinking and loving”, to him it would no longer be the Gospel of Christ, “Way, Truth, and Life”80, but that “civilized conscience” that would make the “Charter” of “Man’s Rights” rule anywhere. «… What is our message? We need, above all, the moral weapons, which give strength and prestige to international law; the weapon, starting with the compliance of agreements»81. Now, once again Paul VI gives pre-eminence to human means. Let us go back, therefore, to his incredible address of October 4, 1965 at the United Nations. Was it not, perhaps, a recital of his “Creed” in the “Religion of Man?” Let us read again those “passages” that aroused not a little amazement: «Our message – said he – is meant to be, first of all, a moral and solemn ratification of this lofty Institution…

We bring to this organization the suffrage of our recent Predecessors, that of the entire Catholic Episcopate, and our own, convinced as we are, that this organization represents the obligatory path of modern civilization and of world peace… The peoples of the earth turn to the United Nations as the last hope of concord and peace. We presume to present here, together with our own, their tribute to honor and of hope»82.

Every person that had retained a minimal Christian sense, must have protested and criticized that profession of faith in an Atheistic and Masonic Organization, which Paul VI went as far as define an “obligatory path” and “last hope of peace”… And that, he repeated in his other message addressed to U’Thant, then Secretary General of the UN, on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of that organization: «Once again, on this day, we wish to repeat what we had the honor to proclaim on October 4, 1965, to the audience of your Assembly: This organization represents the obligatory path of modern civilization and of world peace… If the breeding grounds of violence are always on the rise… The consciousness of humanity affirms itself, with like occurrence, increasingly stronger on this privileged forum where… Men recover their inalienable common trait: the human in man… Thus, we renew our confidence that your organization would be able to respond to the immense hope of a brotherly global community, where anyone might experience a truly human life»83. I repeat: it is a new profession of faith in the UN and in man, whereas the Scriptures tell us: “Blessed is that man that maketh the LORD his trust, and respecteth not the proud…84. But there, at the UN, it wasn’t certainly Peter to have spoken. For Peter, authentic Vicar of Christ, would not certainly “kneel down” before the pride of Man, incarnated in that Masonic Organization that wants to run the world without God. Paul VI, however, went on saying: «Beware, dear friends, that we are ready, today, to deliver you a message of hope. Not only is the cause of man not lost, but also it is in a privileged and safe situation (?!). The great ideas (you may include the Gospel, if so you wish) that are like the beacons of the modern world shall not die out. The unity of the world shall be accomplished. The dignity of the human person shall be recognized in its actuality and not only formally… The unjust social inequalities shall be suppressed. The relations between the peoples shall be founded upon peace, reason, and brotherhood… This is not a dream, or utopia, neither is it a myth: it is evangelical realism»85. It feels like a dream! A Pope, Paul VI, announcing a world without suffering, without the Cross! And that would be nothing less than “evangelical realism”.

The Words of Jesus spring to mind: «Get thee behind me, Satan… Thou art a scandal unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God»86. Words Jesus told Peter, himself, as he did not want Him to suffer the Passion. And what also comes to mind are the words St. Pius X wrote in his “Letter on the Sillon”: «Jesus did not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering would be banished; but, by His lessons and by His example, He traced the path of the happiness which is possible on earth and of the perfect happiness in Heaven: the royal way of the Cross. These are teachings that it would be wrong to apply only to one’s personal life in order to win eternal salvation; these are eminently social teachings, and they show in Our Lord Jesus Christ something quite different from an inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism»87. Clear and doctrinal words that crush all of the fleeting sociological follies of Pope Paul VI’s.

78 Peace Day Allocution, January 1, 1972.

79 Peace Day Allocution, February 1, 1975.

80 John 14, 6.

81 Peace Day Allocution, November 16, 1975.

82 Address to the UN, October 4, 1965.

83 October 4, 1970.

84 Psalm 40, 4.

85 Easter Message, 1971.

86 Matthew 16, 23.

87 Pius X “Letter on the Sillon”, of August 25, 1910, n. 42.

“LIBERTY – EQUALITY – BROTHERHOOD”

«You are yourself God, Pope and King. Your reason is the only rule of Truth, the only key to the science and politics. You have to understand and interpret our holy enterprise as follows: “liberty, equality, fraternity”.

FREEDOM means:

– Independence, unlimited (…) free from authority.

– Independence of spirit (…) or limitation by any dogma.

– Independence of the will… that recognizes neither King nor Pope nor God

– Independence of the personality, which has broken all the chains… earth, sky (…) for its complete emancipation. And freedom, as leverage, and human passions, as a base that demolishes forever the king and the Priests…

EQUALITY means:

– Equality of property…

– Equality of fortunes, with the proportionate balance of wages with the abolition of the right of inheritance, with the confiscation…

– Equality of individuals, with solidarity, with equal enjoyment to its own production solidarity. With Equality as leverage and human appetites as a foothold, we’ll see disappear forever, Silver Aristocracy, implacable executioner of the human race.

BROTHERHOOD means:

– Brotherhood in Freemasonry forms a State within a State with an independent media unknown to the State.

– Brotherhood in Freemasonry forms a State against a State (…) more

– Brotherhood in Freemasonry, to constitute a higher State against State… With Brotherhood as leverage, and human hatred as a base, Parasitism and armed Repression will disappear forever… ».

(Secret Instruction of Leaders Incognito to General Garibaldi)

«Many who belong to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, animated by a false zeal for the Church, lacking the solid safeguards of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, put themselves forward as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ…».
(Pope St. Pius X, “Pascendi”)

CHAPTER III

HIS “OPENING TO MODERNISM”

St. Pius X, in his encyclical “Pascendi” against “Modernism”, wrote that the advocates of error were hiding, by now, even inside the Church, “In the very bosom of the Church”, and that their “counsels of destruction” stirred them “not outside the Church, but inside of Her; so much so that the danger lies in wait almost in Her very veins and viscera”. With the “Motu Proprio” of November 18, 1907, Pius X added “the excommunication to those who contradict these documents” (encyclical “Pascendi” and decree “Lamentabili“). He was addressing the Bishops and Superior Generals of all Orders and Institutes. In 1946, the great P. Garrigeu Lagrange, O. P., in his article “La Nouvelle Théologie Où Va-t-elle?” denounced the work of doctrinal corruption amidst the clergy, seminarians and Catholic intellectuals. He speaks of “typed sheets… distributed… in which were found the most singular assertions and negations about “original sin”, the “Real Presence”, and about all the other truths of Faith (negation of the eternity of hell, Polygenism…); “a general convergence of religions toward a universal Christ whom, all in all, satisfies everyone; the only conceivable religion as a Religion of the future”.

It is the essence of today’s ecumenism; to make every religion converge into Christ, separated, however, from His Mystical Body, the Catholic Church (in the “Lumen Gentium“, the light of the Gentiles, of the Pagans, is Christ, and not His Church). De Lubac, author of the “Surnaturel“, the most forbidden of the “forbidden books”, and also author of the “Corpus Mysticum“, with its dogmatic relativism, explained that repeatedly.

The Vatican II, therefore, under such influxes, “has avoided, in its main documents, the use of the term “supernatural”1. Romano Amerio, too, in his “Jota Unum” (Chapter XXXV), writes: «The Council does not speak of supernatural light, but of “fullness of light”. The naturalism characterizing the two documents “Ad Gentes” and “Nostra Aetate” is patent also in its terminology, as the word “supernatural” does not occur in it».

Father Peter Henrici, in the magazine “30 Giorni” (December, 1991) underscores that the “Nouvelle Théologie” (condemned by Pius XII in “Humani Generis“, in accord with St. Pius X) “has become the official theology of Vatican II”. This is also confirmed by the fact that the “key posts” in the Church have already been assigned to the modern exponents of the “Nouvelle Théologie”, whose official newspaper is the Magazine “Communio“, subsidized by Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. Someone has pointed out that several theologians, named bishops in recent years, come from the files of “Communio”; such as the Germans Lehman and Kasper; the Swiss Von Schönbern and Corecce; the French Léonard; the Italian Scola; the Brazilian Romer…

It must also be noted that the “founders” of this Magazine “Communio”, Balthasar, De Lubac, and Ratzinger, have become cardinals. Today, to this host of names, can be added the Dominican George Cottier, theologian (regretfully) of the “Pontifical House”; Jean Duchesne, the press-agent of Cardinal Lustiger, and the Hegelian André Leonard (today bishop of Namur and responsible for the Seminary of Saint Paul, where Lustiger sends his seminarians).

I also wish to point to the work: “Vatican II – Situation and Prospects 25 Years After: 1962-1987“, in which its author, René Lateurelle, S.J., illustrates the triumph of the “new theology” and the favor it received with Paul VI.

P. Martina, S.J., on pg. 46, writes: «If one cannot certainly talk of excommunications and subsequent canonizations, some great theologians were, however, in those years, made the object of several restrictive measures, only to take on, afterwards, a prominent role among the main Conciliar experts; and they had a thorough influence upon the genesis of the decrees of the Vatican II. Some books, in 1950, were banished from the libraries, but, after the Council, their authors became cardinals (de Lubac, Daniéleu…).

Some pastoral initiatives (such as that of the “working priests”) were condemned and cut short, but were resumed during and after the Council». And so, the “Humani Generis” of Pius XII (1950) was practically retracted by another Pope, Paul VI, who brought back into the limelight his own theologians, whom his predecessor had condemned. And so, with the advent of Paul VI on the Pontifical See, there came into being that “reformist religion” which, by degrees, supplanted the traditional religion. From the loftiness of his Papal See, Paul VI could impose those liberal and pro-Modernist leanings he had breathed ever since his youth, setting off immediately that insane and ruinous process of “experimentation” in the Church, which is but “novelties” supported by the Modernists. I make brief mention of Paul VI’s “antithetical parallelism” to the Pontificate of St. Pius X, who had erected “barriers” against Modernism, which Paul VI, however, knocked down with obstinate decision, one after the other.

Here they are:

– Pius X, in order to protect the “catechesis” from the manipulation of the Modernists, had wanted a basic catechism, one for the entire Church; but Paul VI ostracized St. Pius X’s catechism, and wanted “pluralism” in the catechesis, too; and he proved scandalously tolerant with the heretical “Dutch Catechism“, making it the archetype of all catechisms, more or less bizarre, which then mushroomed throughout the dioceses of the Church.

1 Jesuit Father Peter Henrici, in “Communio”, November-December 1990: “The Maturation of the Council – Pre-Council Theological Experiences”, p. 44.

2 Today, the Holy Office is called “Holy Congregation For the Doctrine of Faith”, which no longer condemns, and only issues, occasionally, some “Notes” (which few read and no one cares about), to indicate some “error” amongst the many springing up and circulating freely in the “mare magnum” of the heresies.

And while Pius X had foiled the insidious tactic of the Modernists – whom presented their errors, “scattered and linked” – denouncing, with his “Pascendi”, those dangerous “novelties” as “an authentic, well-organized system of errors”, Paul VI, instead, brutally revealed his Modernist side, when there came the LXX anniversary of that great Encyclical of St. Pius X, through the Mass Media (Vatican Radio of September 4, 1977 and the Osservatore Romano of September 8, 1977), which defined “Pascendi” a “revelation” of Modernism, “not altogether historically respectful”.

But Paul VI didn’t stop here! He let denigrate the anti-Modernist battle of St. Pius X, stating that “there lacked the knowledge or the will or the respectful courage of reading distinctions and differences in their own reality”. Hence St. Pius X would have been an idiot and a pusillanimous charlatan! That was thus the “commemoration” of that great Pope and Saint, which revealed, however, Montini’s soul, all his bitterness and his ever well-known typical Modernist trademark. And for that, Paul VI repudiated those wise and inspired documents of Pius X’s as they were “a rash pruning of sprouts then attempting to grow”, when, instead, they had revealed the nature of abundant “weeds”, rather than that of “sprouts”, which suffocated almost all the good wheat the Church had harvested in the preceding centuries.

– Furthermore: Pius X, in order to hinder the advance of Modernist rationalism in the Biblical exegesis, had given stability to the “Pontifical Biblical Commission”, wanted by Leo XIII, and, with the “Motu Proprio” of November 18, 1907, had decreed that «All are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission relating to doctrine, which have been given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the Doctrinal Decrees of the “Holy Congregation”, approved by the Pontiff». Today, however, this obligation of conscience is no more, as Paul VI had reduced this “Pontifical Biblical Commission” into a section of the powerless – not to say useless – “Holy Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith”. The evidence is in the fact that the Congregation has never since issued any “Decrees”.

Moreover, on May 7, 1909, Pius X established the “Pontifical Biblical Institute” in Rome, in order to shield the scholars of Science of the Scriptures in the Biblical field from Modernism. But today, unfortunately – and precisely because of Paul VI – this Institute is a nest and a breeding ground for Modernists amongst the most corrupt in the Church. It is appropriate to recall that, in 1964, Paul VI called the Jesuits Zerwik and Lyonnet, whom the Holy Office had condemned and expelled, to the “Biblical” [Institute].

– Pius X, in order to ensure a “formation of the Clergy” that would be doctrinally orthodox, wanted the “Regional Seminaries”, and issued scholarly “Norms for the educational and disciplinary system of Italy’s Seminaries”. But Paul VI, in order to destroy the Seminaries, entrusted the “Congregation for Catholic Education” (and thus also for the Seminaries) to the liberal Cardinal Garrone, who, at the Council, had launched a fierce attack precisely against the Regional Seminaries, and later, as the “Prefect” of that Congregation, shut it down! And in order to consolidate the ecclesiastical community, Pius X had proceeded with the unification of the ecclesiastical laws through the “Canon Law Code” (later promulgated by Benedict XV); but Paul VI, shortly after, (thus without any necessity) called for a “New Code”, which opened the doors to Modernist principles. And while Pius X had staunchly condemned inter-confessionalism [ecumenism] as it is harmful to the Faith of the Catholics and generates indifferentism, Paul VI, instead, wanted that scatterbrained Modernist “ecumenism” that Pius X had already called a: «Charity without Faith, quite soft on misbelievers, which gives way to all , unfortunately, the way to eternal ruin».

But Montini, Archbishop at Milan, in 1958, had said, already: «The boundaries of orthodoxy do not coincide with those of pastoral charity» (?!). Was the “pastoral”, then, to him, beyond Faith?

Be that as it may, it is a fact that Paul VI has always refused to condemn even those theologians who had gone as far as denying the divinity of Christ. And it is a fact that he let some bishops attack the doctrinal encyclicals without reproaching or removing them!

– And it is a fact that he himself used a “style” of non-condemnation even in important and solemn documents, in which he used restrictive formulas, however, so as to invalidate any normative character. So did he with his “Creed”; so did he with the “Humanae Vitae”, away with obligations and punishments.

– For what reason did he demolish, as it were, some encyclicals of his predecessors that had openly condemned Communism, Modernism, and Freemasonry?

– What is the reason for his scandalous passivity before the “Dutch schism”, allowing “errors” to spread throughout the Catholic world?
3

– Why his “inaction”, before the diffusion of so many heretical “catechisms”, before an “ideological pluralism” in forms, ideas, and rites, under the convenient label of “pastoral”, or of cultural broadening, in order that every truth, every dogma, every certainty might be repudiated; even though in his exhortations, occasionally, he affected to be calling to order? Paul VI, in any case, not only always refused to condemn, but also stood in the way of any condemnation, placing even in high offices true and genuine advocates of heresies, such as, for example, Küng, whom he personally defended4.

– That is why he never wanted to condemn the heretic, Teilhard de Chardin, whom, on the contrary, he occasionally cited and subtly praised.

– And that is why he let the Holy See be challenged upon the most important points of the Faith, without reactions on his part.

– And that is why he threw away all of Tradition, with shrewdness, “destructions” and “reconstructions” made “in stages”, introduced, at first, “ad esperimentum”, out of special or personal interest, to be soon reconfirmed or promulgated.

3 “Live Church”, 1972, issues 8, 9, 10, 11, and 13.

4 “Corriere della Sera”, August 10, 1978, p. 4.

– And that is why he diminished “ministerial Catholic priesthood”, bringing it closer to the ministry of the “Protestant Pastors”.

– And that is why he let the seminarians travel to Taizé, where Protestant and Calvinist cults are also celebrated; and he continued to welcome their Leaders, such as Schutz and Thurian and even others, as if they had been authentic “ministers”. – And that is why he allowed many theologians to continue to demolish “ministerial priesthood”, less and less distinguished from the “priesthood” of the laity5.

– And that is why he wanted that “Reform of the Seminaries”, which cries out for vengeance before Christ the Priest.

– And that is why he allowed (nay, he wanted!) that the habit be replaced with civilian clothing, with all the consequences that this has brought about (and it is still bringing about).

– And that is why he eliminated the Tonsure, the Ostiariate, the Exorcistate, and the Subdiaconate (September 15, 1972), that is to say, all of the Minor Orders.

– And that is why he wanted, categorically wanted, his Change of the “Traditional Mass”.

– And that is why he let the psychosis of the “woman-priest” spread, although he later had to say that it could not have been (as of yet), letting cardinals and bishops, however, continue to publicize, that idea undisturbed.

– And that is why he admitted the possibility of accepting “married priests”.

– And that is why he allowed co-celebrations of “Anglican Pastors” at the Vatican.

– And that is why he allowed some Protestants to receive the Eucharist.

– And that is why he allowed Holy Communion to be distributed into the hands and that the “Holy Species” could be placed in breadbaskets and even distributed by girls in miniskirts.

– And that is why he let pass and authorized “open Communions”, that is, that Protestants could participate in the Communion during Catholic Mass, and that Catholics could participate in the Protestant “Supper”.

– And that is why he abolished “Latin” in the Liturgy, forcing the use of national languages and even dialects (eliminating, in this way, catholicity), and similarly ruined sacred music (we have tom-toms, at St. Peter’s, as well as rock
music), and emptied our churches of all that is sacred, and had the “altars” turned facing the people (counter to the “Humani Generis“), in the fashion of the tables for the Protestant “Suppers”.

And thus he turned the Church into a sort of “Political Party”, and turned “religion” into a sort of lively Center (melting pot) of integral humanism, “as he wanted to build a world wherein every man, no matter what his race, religion or nationality, can live a fully human life”6.

In simple terms, Paul VI’s “religion” became, as it were, the “servant” of the world, since “religion must be renovated”… (August 12, 1960), since all religions are equal, serving only for the purpose of fraternizing in the temporal sphere.

Hence Paul VI allowed the demolition of dogmas, as these were a hindrance to brotherhood.

He allowed the Sacraments to be obscured and the Commandments to be weakened, as these were too inflexible.

In brief: He allowed the whole institution of the Church to crumble to the ground.

Utopia or apostasy? Idolater of science, or pseudo-science, He made a cult of it. – That is why he spoke, terrorized, by the continuous growth of world population, seconding, in this manner, the Masonic-Capitalist campaign behind “Birth Control”.

– That is why he received Doctor Barnhard (the first physician to perform a heart “transplant”) even before studying the moral aspects of this practice.

– That is why he sang the praises to the man on the moon.

– With his “revisions”, with his “adaptation” to the world, he emptied seminaries, religious novitiates, gave the Church leftist “trade unionist priests”, reduced the message of the Cross to a vile humanism. It was he, in fact, who wanted the revision and modernization of all the Constitutions of Religious Orders and Institutes, bringing about destruction, disorder, anarchy, and chaos.

– He destroyed every Catholic organization: A.C., FUCI, oratories, and traditional parish associations.

– He abandoned the “Tiara”, symbol of Pontifical power (donating it to Milan, but then losing it in the United States).

– He abolished the “Pastoral”.

– He wore, on his chest, the “Ephod” of Hebrew High Priest.

– He handed the Insignia of St. James to the Orthodox.

– He democratized all the institutions of the Church.

– He spread and wanted the concept of “democracy” in all of the institutions of the Church, although it [concept of democracy] had been condemned by the past Magisterium (such as Vatican I (DS 3115); such as St. Pius X in “Sillon”), thus weakening the monarchical power, of divine right, in the Church.

– He introduced 15 women into the Council, and later on 70 more into the Vatican offices, 7 of which in the Holy See’s most delicate Offices, in direct contact with the Pope.

– He always refused to receive groups of seculars and priests that were faithful to Tradition (thus creating, himself, new forms of schism), whereas he always sent out his “Blessings” to all the others, non-traditionalists.

– He always received Freemasons, Communists, Modernists, protesters and leftists of any kind.

– He received, without reactions, the movie star Cardinale [1967: Paul VI received actress Claudia Cardinale and Antonella Lualdi, first miniskirts ever to enter the Vatican], in miniskirt; and girls in shorts and “hot pants”; all in a special audience, declaring himself altogether “Mindful of certain values that you are pursuing: spontaneity, sincerity, liberation from certain formal and conventional ties, the necessity of being oneself and to live and to interpret the issues of one’s own times”7.

– He received the scandalous hippies and beatnik singers, and pop bands, in blue jeans, long and disheveled hair, ragged T-shirts and coats.

– He received Marcellino de Santos, head of the assassins who murdered even a Missionary Father and the inhabitants of Mueda (Mozambique); and he gave his blessing to the murderer Cabrol, of Guinea, and to Agostinho Neto, Leader of Terrorism in Angola, etc.

(Even if some of Fr. Villa’s concerns and criticisms are seemingly trivial, over-sensitive or unacceptable, one must agree that he has brought up many valid points considering the continued general decline in doctrinal, catechetical, liturgical and moral standards of the Church under the Pontificate of Pope Francis –Michael)

5 Cardinal Willebrands’ rash statement, in an interview upon his joining the Conclave, and broadcast by RAI [Italy’s public TV Network] at 7.00 a.m. on August 14, 1978, precisely on this subject: the Church of tomorrow should accept married priests, etc.

6 “Populorum Progressio”, n. 47.

7 “Il Tempo”, April 14, 1971.

All in all, he made a relentless show of his will to break with the Church of the past. Even his inconsiderate relegation of octogenarian Cardinals, forbidding them from entering the Conclave for the election of the Pope, concealed his “mens” [mind] of eliminating from the Conclave all those members who would not be favorable to his own line of “revision” of his “new Church”. He wanted the resignation of the Bishops, making it mandatory at 75 years.

– He created the “Episcopal Conferences”, without defined power limits.

– He eliminated major figures in the Church, placing in many posts of command progressive and liberal-Freemasonic figures.

– He abolished many holy days of obligation.

– He wrote off abstinence from meat on Fridays.

– He opened the way, with his silence, to the obsession of sexual relations in Catholic schools.

– He let the doors open to all kinds of protests.

– He issued a “Decree” for “mixed marriages”, without mandating Catholic Baptism of their offspring!

– He attempted to abolish traditional “cloistered life”, even though he masked his position, on the outside, with favorable expressions.

– He dispatched (Dutch)
Cardinal Johannes Willebrands, as his “Legate”, to the Lutheran Assembly of Evian (September, 1970) to sing Luther’s praises.

– He performed that incredible gesture of throwing himself down on his knees and kissing the feet of Metropolite Melitone, envoy of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Demetrius.

– He destroyed the so-called “triumphalism” in the Church, in the name of the slogan: “The Church of the Poor”, which, in reality, is but a caving in to the Secular-Masonic-Marxist mind in our times.

– Under his Pontificate, the Vatican accredited the first “woman-ambassador”, Miss Bernardette P. A. Olowo (not even 28 years old).

– He blessed the “Pentecostals”, dancing and screaming at St. Peter’s.

– He – still Archbishop of Milan – opened up the “Secret Archives of the Curia” to search for documents regarding the “Monaca di Monza” [Nun of Monza, made famous by Alessandro Manzoni’s novel, “The Betrothed”], which was a basis for a novel and a film (as if he had been unable to determine the moral harm this would cause).

– His was the clamorous “absolution” to the Graham Greene’s book, “The Power and the Glory”, a longstanding entry in the Index
(of Forbidden Books).

– He multiplied the “disobedient” in every sector, granting them his tolerance, such as the “ACLI”, the “small groups”, the “base communities”, the “Catholics for Socialism”, the “Fourth of November” movement, the “working priests”, the adherents to the “Red Christ” of the Italian Socialist party (PSI); that is, a total landslide to the left.

We may conclude that he ditched all that sustained the Church and Christian Europe: authority, hierarchy, discipline, family, teaching, Catholic university, regular and secular clergy, parishes. He declassed the Sacraments, and imposed bogus liturgical reforms.

It is a “fact” that, in his speeches – in an almost edifying manner – the “new” always prevails upon the traditional. But his ability was to always slip in, after a witticism or an anti-progressive reasoning, an additional piece encouraging the progressives. It is similarly a “fact” that his hetero-praxis [Hetero-praxis is any practice that a person or a group does or could do which implies that one or more Catholic doctrines are not true i.e. Communion in the hand] provoked a doctrinal change, though not expressed in a doctrinal way.

In conclusion, we narrate this eloquent episode: the nephew of professor Dietrich von Hildebrand, Doctor Sattler, Ambassador to the Holy See, in July, 1968 told the Hildebrands that Paul VI had said to them: «It is my hope, during my reign, to achieve the “reconciliation” between Catholics and Protestants». The Ambassador was quite troubled. He kept on saying: «He said “reconciliation”, not “conversion”!»

***

This was the real face of Paul VI. This was his Pontificate. Just as he had always been considered a “progressive”, even before becoming a pope, he then became the victim of his own boldness. One has only to recall his steadfast opposition, at the Council, of the “Coetus Internationalis Patrum”, as he never stopped supporting the liberal bishops. And just consider his silent attitude before the internal demolition of the Church and his fiery perseverance in destroying the Catholic Nations (Italy, Spain, etc.). And it should not slip one’s mind his other “silent” behavior indicative of his liberal, Modernist-progressive mind: When the “divorce” legislation was approved in Italy, Paul VI was in Sydney (Australia). He was promptly informed, and he said he was expecting it; He was sorry for the harm it would cause the family, and for the reason that it was in breach of a provision of the Concordat. As for “sin”, however, ne verbum quidem [not a single word]!

***

I could go on and on with so many other “facts” and “words” of Paul VI’s, clearly indicative of what an authentic liberal-Modernist he had been.

On June 30, 1968, in order to dispel suspicions as to his “Modernism”, Paul VI, at St. Peter Square, for the closing of the Year of the Faith, made a solemn “Profession of Faith”, which appeared as the “New Creed”, an antidote for the “New Catechism”. And yet reading closely his writing, one could see that Paul VI had, yes, taken up the old Creed of Nicea, but had also inserted into it some points of a more recent Catholic doctrine.

There was a burst of enthusiasm for that “Creed”8, but – a “but” is really a must – Paul VI had prefaced the text of his formulation of the act of Faith, with two clarifications: The first, that he intended to fulfill “the mandate Christ entrusted to Peter”, and provide “a firm testimony of the divine truth entrusted to the Church”; and this was perfectly all right. But, with a second clarification, he put everything back into question, as he excluded, expressly, that his Creed was “a dogmatic definition” in the strict sense of the word.

In his own words: «… We are about to make a profession of faith, to utter a creed, which, without being a dogmatic definition in the strict sense of the word (!!), and despite some developments sought-after by the spiritual conditions of our time…».

Now, that is a very serious fact, a deliberate misconstruction, for every object-proposition of the “Creed” constitutes “revealed truths, of divine Faith and of Catholic faith”, attested in the Scriptures, in the Apostolic Tradition (e.g. the two sources of Revelation) and defined by the Infallible Magisterium of the Church. Hence truths of Catholic Faith. What then? Was it his umpteenth clever action in order to hide his real mind? Was it shielding himself from the critics, since he had failed to condemn the “Dutch Catechism?” (Shortly after, in fact, he had himself photographed together with the famed Dutch Dominican heretic Father Schillebeeckx, co-author of that ill-famed catechism). Be it as it may, a strange silence followed the “Creed” of Paul VI. In lieu of a plebiscite of adhesions without reservations, on the part of the official ruling Catholic world, there was no open and uttered consent.

8 For example, on the “Osservatore Romano” of August 31, 1968 – article by Jean Daniéleu.

I conclude by saying that what I reported of his “remarks” and “deeds”, is more than sufficient, I think it is enough to dishonor his Pontificate by thinking of him as of a “new Honorius“. Namely, when Pope Leo II confirmed the anathema of the VII Ecumenical Council of Constantinople against pope Honorius, he had only said this: «With Honorius, who did not, as he became the Apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence».

Now, this imputation can also definitely be brought against Paul VI.

Like Honorius, in fact, he too “fomented heresy through his negligence” and, perhaps, even worse than pope Honorius, through his approval. Yes, for Paul VI continued to see to that “self-destruction” of the Church, which he, himself, had denounced, in spite of being its author, and which he, himself, had carried forward with those “men of the Church” whom he, himself, had placed and maintained in key positions. Regrettably, today, we are still suffering those sorrowful years of his pontificate, which might be defined as one of the worst periods of the long history of the Church. The consequences are there for all to see: the Faith gone; the true Liturgy destroyed; the Eucharistic cult humiliated; sound theology in shambles; the Sacraments no longer inspiring trust, for their significance has been distorted; the Mass that has become a communal gathering; the Catechism devoid of dogma; the children themselves that have lost respect for sacred things; and thousands of them are no longer baptized, because of the quaint ideas of many priests; and the prayers for the dead that have been disposed of due to a trivial and ugly liturgy. At this juncture, to reform this Church, leprous with heresy and irreverence, what is needed is a Divine Intervention, since a true Reformation would have to set out with restoring the Altar of the “Sacrifice” (which is not the “table” of the Protestant “Supper” imposed, by now, even in Catholic churches), since only from the true Altar comes unity; and only there “Truth” is affirmed, and from thence alone can spread true Charity.

AGAINST “MODERNISM”

– «Many false prophets will arise and deceive many». (Mt 24, 11)

– «If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself». (St. Augustine)

– «There being an imminent danger for the faith, prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects». (St. Thomas Aquinas)

– «Especially when the danger is imminent, the truth must be publicly preached, nor should one do the contrary out of fear that someone be scandalized!». (St. Thomas Aquinas)

– «Be strong! We must not yield where we must not yield … We must fight, not mincing words, but with courage, not in secret but in public, not behind closed doors, but open». (St. Pius X)

– «They have hatred towards everything that is traditional and sacred». (St. Pius X)

– «The partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church’s open enemies; but, what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in Her very bosom». (St. Pius X)

– «Not to oppose error, is to approve it, and not to defend truth is to suppress it». (Pope St. Felix III)

– «Let it be far from any one’s mind to suppress for any reason any doctrine that has been handed down. Such a policy would tend rather to separate Catholics from the Church than to bring in those who differ». (Pope Leo XIII)

– «If I have against me all the Bishops, I have with me all the Saints and Doctors of the Church». (St. Thomas Aquinas)

«Freemasonry: Here is the enemy». (Leo XIII, “Humanum Genus”)

CHAPTER IV

HIS “OPENING TO FREEMASONRY”

The Catholic Church has always condemned this “Masonic sect”, denouncing its “secrets” in the process. Jacques Mitterand, former Grand Master of the “Grand Orient” of France, made admission of it. In his work, “The Policy of the Freemasons”, he wrote: «The Catholic Church did not mistake the importance of the event… With the Bull “In Eminenti“, Pope Clement XII pronounced, in 1738, the excommunication of the French Freemasons, denouncing the “secret” that surrounded them and their operations»1.

After 1738, all of the Pontiffs renewed those “admonitions” and those “sanctions”.

Here are their major encyclicals on that theme:

“PROVIDAS ROMANORUM” of Benedict XIV, on May 18, 1751;

“QUO GRAVIORA“, Apostolic Constitution of Leo XII, on March 13, 1826;

“ECCLESIAM A JESU CHRISTO” of Pius VII, against the “Carbonari” [“coal-burners”; secret revolutionary society founded in early 19th century Italy, and organized in the fashion of Freemasonry] on September 13, 1821;

“TRADITI HUMILATI” of Pius VIII, on May 24, 1829, confirming the previous “anathemas”;

“QUI PLURIBUS” of Pius IX, on November 9, 1846;

“QUIBUS QUANTISQUE” of Pius IX, on November 9, 1849;

“HUMANUM GENUS” of Leo XIII, on April 20, 1884;

“PASCENDI” of St. Pius X, on September 8, 1907.

***

Benedict XIV blessed Monsignor Jouin for his work: “Against the Sects That are the Enemies of Religion”. Pius XII, on July 24, 1958, denounced, as the roots of modern apostasy, Scientific Atheism, Dialectic Materialism, Rationalism, Secularism, and their common mother: FREEMASONRY2.

Pope John XXIII, in 1960, reminded the Roman Synod: «As for the Masonic sect, the faithful must keep in mind that the penalty stipulated by the Canon Law Code (canon 2335) is still in effect»3.

The approach of the Church, then, up until the Vatican II, was always clear and coherent. The condemnation of Freemasonry was because of its tendency to destroy the religious order and the Christian social order, even if it presents itself under the mask of tolerance and respect of the others. Its real aim, however, is that of rebuilding society on a new basis, excluding Our Lord Jesus Christ, in order to achieve a universal religion, according to the principle of democracy.

1 Clement XII, “In Eminenti”, p. 45.

2 Ploncard D’Assac: “The Secret of the French Freemasons”, p. 226-227.

3 Idem.

In fact, ever since that sect was able to operate, there were, in France, five revolutions (1789-1830-1848-1870-1945), four foreign invasions (1815-1870-1914-1940), two spoliations of the Church; the expulsion of the Religious Orders; the suppression of Catholic schools; the secularization of the institutions (1789 and 1901)… And yet, today, one still hears – irresponsibly! – that Freemasonry has changed, hence no longer deserving of condemnation. But that is a bogus statement. Even prior to Vatican II, the Roman documents were more than explicit. For example: «Freemasonry of the Scottish rite falls under the condemnation issued by the Church against Freemasonry in general, and there is no reason to grant any discrimination in favor of that category of Freemasons»4. «Since nothing has come about that would solicit a change, in this matter, in the decisions of the Holy See, the provisions of the Canon Law retain their full validity, for any type of Freemasonry what-so-ever»5.

On January 5, 1954, the Holy Office condemned a work by the Grand Master of Austrian Freemasonry.

On February 20, 1959, the Plenary Assembly of the Argentinian Cardinals, Archbishops, and Bishops, published a “Statement” recalling the formal condemnations from Pope Clement XII through to St. Pius X, and underscored that Freemasonry and Marxism pursue one and the same aim.

Unfortunately, with Vatican II, the Church modified Her course. The Freemasons, themselves, were prompt to observe it: «The Council of Rome (Vatican II), in its second session, let transpire a great diplomatic movement of the Church in the direction of Freemasonry. The approach of the Church does not surprise the French Freemasonry’s leaders, who had long been expecting it and believed to have traced, rightly or wrongly, in the works of M. Alec Melior and in the conferences of Father Riquet (a Jesuit), the preliminary efforts toward a preparation of the mentality»6. This “new direction” of the Church was confirmed by Freemason Yves Marsaudon7 in a book of his published at the conclusion of the Council: «When Pius XII decided to direct personally the very important Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Monsignor Montini (sent to Milan) did not receive the purple. It thus became, not canonically impossible, but traditionally difficult that upon the death of Pius XII, he could accede to the Supreme Pontificate. But then came a man whom, like his Precursor, called himself John, and then it all began to change…8.

If some small islands still exist, not too distant, in the mind, from the times of the Inquisition, they would be forcibly drowned in the high tide of Ecumenism and Liberalism, one of the tangible consequences of which shall be the lowering of the spiritual barriers still dividing the world. It is with all our heart, we wish the success of John XXIII’s “revolution”»9.

And so, the “new” approach of the Church was the change of course by Vatican II, guided formerly by John XXIII, and subsequently by Paul VI, which adopted ecumenical and liberal positions toward Freemasonry, even though for 250 years they had been utterly different. At this juncture, someone might ask himself: How is it that with Vatican II, there was such an “opening” to Freemasonry, when, prior to it, Freemasonry had always been judged the “number one enemy” of the Catholic Church? But anyone that followed the progress of Vatican II should know that “liberal” and “Modernist” bishops, not a few of whom belonged, if not “de facto”, ideologically, however, to Freemasonry, had taken it over. The “fact” was patent, for example, in Cardinal Achille Liénart, Bishop of Lille, who ruined Vatican II since its very first session, causing all of the Pontifical Commissions that had already prepared all the work and study plans, to be rejected. He acted under command of the “Masonic occultic power”. And yet, in France, it was no secret that his political ideas were redder than his habit, and that he also belonged to Freemasonry; that his “initiation” had taken place in 1912; that he “received the light” at Cambrai; that he frequented three Lodges at Lille and one at Valenciennes, and then two more at Paris, “reserved for Parliamentarians”; and that, in 1924, he was elevated to the 30th degree and made “Kaddosh Knight”10. As one can see, a “curriculum vitae” of a Freemason Bishop-Cardinal that is quite eloquent as to the weight he had in the Council.

4 “Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office”, 1946.

5 Same petition, April 20, 1949.

6 J. A. Faucher – A. Ricker: “History of Freemasonry in France”, p. 469.

7 Baron Marsaudon was a “thirty-third” honorary “commendatore” of the Supreme Council of France (Grand Lodge) and Distinguished Minister of the Supreme Military Order of Malta. He had been well acquainted with Monsignor Roncalli when this was Nuncio at Paris. It is certain, in any case, that Monsignor Roncalli had no diffidence toward Freemasonry, as he demonstrated, for example, when, having become Pope, he received a telegram of congratulations from a Lodge on his 80th birthday, and as his stance demonstrated, in this regard, during the Roman Synod of 1960.

8 Marsaudon: “Ecumenism Viewed By a Freemason of Tradition”, p. 42.

9 As above, p. 26.

10 The Freemason Monsieur B., (healed at Lourdes on July 19, 1932, whose healing was recognized by the “Bureau des Constatations” on July 18, 1933), narrated that, at the time he frequented the Lodges, he used to meet there with Cardinal Liénart.

Therefore, it would not be out of place if we also recall his cry, on his deathbed: “Humainement, l’Eglise est Perdue!”11. But then, what could we say of Paul VI as to that Jewish-Masonic occupation that, throughout his Pontificate and during Vatican II, was, as it were, flanked by that dark shadow that dominated it? From many places and at different times, in an objective manner, even fierce, at times, it was insinuated that Paul VI – according to experts of heraldry and nobility – descended from converted Jews12, and had been “initiated” by the B’nai B’rith Lodge, and that he always entertained good relations with Freemasons and Jewish circles13. Be that as it may, in order to shed a cloudless light upon this aspect of Paul VI’s personality, it would be appropriate to closely examine some of the “facts”. Specifically:

1) Paul VI’s “obituary”, or funeral oration by the former Grand Master of “Palazzo Giustiniani” [Rome’s headquarters of the Grand Orient of Italy], Giordano Gamberini, made in “La Rivista Massonica” magazine is disconcerting. It reads: «To us, it is the death of him who made the condemnation of Clement XII and of his successors fall. That is, it is the first time – in the history of modern Freemasonry – that the Head of the greatest Western religion dies not in a state of hostility with the Freemasons»!

And he concludes:

«… For the first time in history, the Freemasons can pay respect to the tomb of a Pope, without ambiguities or contradiction»14.

In fact, having considered the events that took place under Paul VI’s Pontificate (such as to cause him to say that a “self-destruction” of the Church was afoot), one can perceive how it had been possible that Freemasonry could pay such a bombastic tribute to Paul VI.

2) In a lengthy letter of the renowned Pauline Don Rosario F. Esposito, in “La Rivista Massonica” Magazine, to the former Grand Master Gamberini, it is said: «… Dear Gamberini, I appreciated, even in its Cartesian aloofness, your editorial on the death of the Pope»15. And he continued revealing some “facts”, spanning from 1950 to 1959, and which demonstrated Paul VI as a protagonist. Namely: between 1948 and 1950, the then Monsignor Montini said to Father Felix A. Morlion, OP, founder of “Pro Deo”: «Not a generation will pass and, between the two societies (Church and Freemasonry), the peace shall be sealed»16. (But is the Church a… “society”?).

In any case, that “peace” was ratified by the Holy Office in July of 1974, with a “letter”: “The letter of the Holy Office to Cardinal Krol bears the date of July 19, 1974, thus the terms of “a generation” have been perfectly met17.

That “Letter” was from Cardinal Seper, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, with which, other than announcing a “new Canon Law Code”, he invited the Bishops, in dealing with the Freemasons, to follow the example of the North European Bishops, which consisted in the “permit” granted by the Scandinavian and Finnish Bishops (and tolerated by the Vatican) to the Protestant Freemasons converted to Catholicism, to retain their status of Freemasons.

Here is that text of the Danish, Norwegian and Swedish Bishops, published on the Official Bulletin of the Norwegian Episcopate, “Sankt Olaw” of June of 1967: «The Scandinavian Episcopal Conference has decided, after lengthy and careful reflection, that the Bishops may allow, individually, the members of the Masonic Order of our Northern Nations wishing to embrace Catholicism, to be welcomed in the Church without renouncing their active membership in Freemasonry»18.

As one can see, this concession was in open contrast with Canon 2335 of the “Codex Juris Canonici” of St. Pius X, which established: «Nomen dantes sectae massonicae aliisve eiusdem generis associationibus quae contra Ecclesiam vel legitimas civiles potestates machinantur, contrahunt ipso facto excommunicationem Sedi Apostolicae simpliciter reservatam». [Translation: Persons who have themselves enrolled in the Masonic sect, or in other associations of the same kind which plot against the Church or the legitimate civil powers, incur ipso facto excommunication reserved simply to the Apostolic See.]

In that “Letter”, besides, Father Esposito points out – on paper– other “facts” on Paul VI’s favoring of Freemasonry. Like the following: Paul VI “was not afraid to acknowledge that the Church had succumbed to excessive mistrust” toward the “Rotary Club”, an institution linked to Freemasonry19. In addition to what Father Esposito wrote, we could add more significant “facts” and “remarks” as to the “mens” [mind] and conduct of Paul VI with regard to Freemasonry.

– In a Masonic magazine it is said that the Grand Master Gamberini, on the very day of the announcement of Montini’s Papal investiture, said: “Here is our man!”

– Carlo Falconi, writes in a book: «… et j’ajouterai que l’information que m’a comuniquée comme certaine un “trente troisiéme degré”, par ailleurs digne de foi, selon laquelle Montini serait inscrit dans une Loge maconnique, m’a toujours laissé très perplexe».20 [I would add that the information I received from a certain 33 degree – also credible – that Montini was always enrolled in a Masonic Lodge- always leaves me very perplexed].

– In a private letter, written by a Freemason, friend of the renowned French writer, Count Léon de Poncins, an authority in Masonic issues, this passage appears: «…With Pius X and Pius XII, we Freemasons could do very little, but, avec Paul VI, nous avons vencu!» No need for translation!

– Now, that Vatican II had also been controlled by liberal Freemasons has been proven by the “fact” of the Freemason Cardinal Liénart, as we already noted. A head of Freemasonry, Minister of State of the Supreme Council of the Scottish Rite in France, Mr. Marsaudon, in his book: “Ecumenism From the Perspective of a Freemason of Tradition”, speaking of all Pope Montini had done, wrote: «One could really speak of a Revolution that from our Masonic Lodges has spread out magnificently, reaching the top of St. Peter’s Basilica». Was it not, perhaps, his “Liturgical Reform”, that was foreseen by the Freemason Roca in 1883? «The divine cult – had written Roca – in an Ecumenical Council shall undergo a transformation that will put it in harmony with the state of modern civilization»21.

And why did Paul VI lift the “censures”22 on Freemasonry, thus allowing the secular to join it (if at the discretion of one’s own Bishop)? And what right did he have to do that, after the more than 200 “documents” of the Magisterium condemning it? And so it was that the Grand Master Lino Salvini, in an interview on the eve of the assembly of the Grand Orient (March 18, 1978), could say, “Our relations with the Vatican are excellent”.

– And why was a portrait of Pius IX allowed… depicted as a Freemason, with an accompaniment of moral insults (his alleged illegitimate sons, etc.), left in display at Palazzo Braschi, in Rome, while no one, neither the Secretary of State, nor the Vicariate of Rome, nor the Osservatore Romano, ever reacted or protested? Even Cardinal Poletti, to whom I myself wrote a vibrant letter, did not condescend to send me a reply. [Ed. note: Pius IX was accused of being a Mason as the Masons in Roman made a portrait in which the pope was wearing Masonic signs. But this has been proved to be a Masonic trick. So, while leaving exposed… a portrait of Pius IX… with an outline of moral insults (his presumed sons etc…) they (the Vatican) wanted to slander the Pope to help their efforts to stop his beatification process.]

– Thus Freemasonry, in Paul VI’s Church, was by now extremely visible, both in the “black lists” and in the actuation of “programs” in a strict Masonic style. – And how many “Masonic laws” have entered the Church under his Pontificate: divorce, abortion, separation between Church and State, degradation of Seminaries and Religious Congregations, parity of women, and so forth and so on. And while he always refused to receive the Catholics of Tradition, he continually welcomed, instead, the members of the Masonic Lodges, like, for example, those of the Jewish Masonic Lodge of the “B’nai-Brith”; like those of “L’Alliance Israélite Universelle”, which aims at achieving the union of all religions into one. Now, the identity of views of this “Masonic scheme” can be observed in the Masonic schemes of the UN, of UNESCO, as well as in his encyclical “Populorum Progressio“. Paul VI, in fact, speaks of a “world bank” backed by a “world Government”, which would be ruling thanks to a “synthetic and universal religion”. And on August 9, 1965, in regard to Judaism, Islamism, and Christianity, Paul VI had to say: «They are three expressions (?!!) professing an identical monotheism, through the three most authentic avenues…». And again: «Would it not be possible that the name of the very same God, instead of irreducible oppositions… generate a possible agreement… without the prejudice of theological discussions»? Sure it would be possible! So long as Christ “Son of God” is kicked out of the picture (for he does not exist in other religions), along with the Holy Trinity. – And what to say, then, of his “religion of man”, which he relentlessly advocated, as if that it is not a distinctive Masonic concept? And let us recall, once again, his visit to the UN (one of Freemasonry’s highest places), where, before reciting before the Assembly his humanist address (which any other Freemason might as well have uttered), Paul VI walked into the “Meditation Room”, the Masonic sanctuary, at the center of which stands “an altar for a faceless God”. Now, Paul VI had to know that “chamber of meditation” was… a Masonic Lodge.

11 “Tradition – Information”, n. 7, p. 21.

12 We cite, amongst the many: Paul Scortesco, “L’Eglise Condannée”, suppl. a “Lumiére” n. 148, 1976, p. 23 and subsequent; Leon De Poncins, “Christianisme et Franc-Maçonnerie”, “La Pensée Française” Editions, Chiré, p. 272, note 5.

13 The “documentation” on the thought and “Masonic work” of Paul VI in “Forts dans la Foi”, Issues 46 and 47, year 1976, in the articles of the fathers Simon and Guérard des Lauriers.

14 “La Rivista Massonica” ed., n. 5, July 1978, p. 290.

15 “La Rivista Massonica” ed., n. 6, August 1978, p. 371-373.

16 J. A. Ferrer, G. Caprile: “Freemasonry and Catholic Church”, p. 91. (On “Pastoral Life” of December 1974, Father Esposito had already hinted to the fact, without revealing, at the time, the name of the interlocutor of Father Morilion – as later did Monsignor Montini)

17 “La Rivista Massonica”, n. 6, August 1978, p. 372.

18 Georges Virebeau, “Prélats et Franc-Maçons”, Henry Coston Publisher, 1978, p. 92.

19 “La Rivista Massonica”, n. 6, August 1978, p. 372. Paolo VI’s statement at an audience with the Rotarians.

20 From the French edition of “Vu et Entendu au Concile”, Ed. du Rocher, 1962

21 “Mystère d’Iniquité”, p. 43 – Editions Saint-Michel, 53 Saint-Céneré – CCP Rennes 2074-79.

22 C.D.C., art. 2335.

But there are countless “facts” witnessing of his explicit collaboration with Freemasonry.

– During his journey to the Holy Land (in 1954), on the Mount of Olives, at Jerusalem, he embraced the Orthodox Patriarch Athenagoras I, Freemason of the XXXIII degree. Then, on the eve of the closing of Vatican II, the pair lifted the mutual “excommunications” launched in 1054.

– On May 19, 1964, Paul VI constituted the “Secretariat for Non-Christians”, and so “Observers” and “Delegates” of the various non-Christian religions could enter the Council. At the Fourth Session, they already numbered 103.

– Later on, Paul VI would give his “pastoral” and his “ring” to the Burmese Buddhist U’Thant, Secretary General of the UN.

– And on November 13, 1964, he would depose the “tiara” (the “triregno”) on the altar, definitively renouncing it. A gesture that was the objective of the “French Revolution”, and which brings to mind the words of the Freemason Albert Pike: «The inspirers, the philosophers, and the historical leaders of the French Revolutions had sworn to overthrow the “CROWN” and the “TIARA” on the tomb of Jacques de Molay»23.

However, this gesture of Paul VI’s was but the exteriorization of that which he had already manifested on December 7, 1965, at the conclusion of Vatican II, in the homily in which he said: «Secular humanism, revealing itself in its horrible anti-clerical reality has, in a certain sense, defied the Council. The religion of the God who became man has met the religion – for such it is – of man who makes himself God. And what happened? Was there a clash, a battle, a condemnation? There could have been, but there was none. The old story of the Samaritan has been the model of the spirituality of the Council. A feeling of boundless sympathy has permeated the whole of it»

Now, apart from the “Samaritan” that has nothing to do with it (the “Good Samaritan”, in fact, stooped compassionately over a human being and not over a religion), here, instead, one can but remark that “the religion of man who makes himself God” is that same religion of Freemasonry, as the Grand Master of the “Grand Orient” of France Jacques Mitterand had clearly expressed, in one of his speeches, saying: «Teilhard de Chardin has committed the crime of Lucifer, for which the Freemasons have been much reproached by Rome: in the phenomenon of “humanization”, or, to use Teilhard’s formula, of the “Noosphere”, that is in that mass of consciences enveloping the globe, it is man that stands at the forefront. When this conscience reaches its apogee, the “Omega Point” – as Teilhard says – man is such as we wish him to be, free in the flesh and in the spirit. Thus Teilhard has elevated man to the altar, and, worshipping him, he could not worship God»24. Man who makes himself “god”, therefore, commits Lucifer’s sin; he follows, that is, the counsel of the ancient Biblical serpent: “Thou shall be as gods”, and thus he learnt the rebellion to God. Now, that, in a nutshell, is the content of the philosophy of the Jesuit heretical theologian (?!) Teilhard de Chardin, sectarian Freemason of the Martinist Order25.

It must be noted that this Jesuit heretic was one of the “masters” of Vatican II, through, in particular, his disciple De Lubac, whom, although banished by Pius XII26, was reintegrated by John XXIII, who even called him as “consultant” at the Council. Paul VI, then, in closing the Thomist Congress, “in the hall of the Chancery, insisted that de Lubac speak of Teilhard de Chardin”27.

At this juncture, we also recall what the Pauline Father Rosario Esposito – author of reiterated professions of Masonic faith – wrote in his book: “The Great Concurrences Between Church and Freemasonry“, where, in the biographical index, he informs us that among the protagonists of the “bilateral dialogues” between exponents of the Church and Freemasonry, which took place between 1966 and 1977, was the Salesian Don Vincenzo Miano, secretary of the “Secretariat for the Non-believers” and author of a book titled: “The Secretariat for the Non-believers and Freemasonry“. Now, Don Miano participated in all those dialogues, “illustrating, afterward, the positions reached by the Holy Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith and Paul VI in person, who followed and encouraged these meetings”28.

No wonder, then, that Paul VI decided to have in the Executive Committee for a “Concordant Bible”, the Grand Master of the Grand Orient of Italy, professor Gamberini, who was amongst the founders of the “Gnostic Church of Italy”, in which he holds the position of “bishop”, under the pseudonym of Julianus. Now, the “Gnostic Church” is the “Satanist church”, officially founded, in France, in 1888, by the Freemason Jules Doinel.

And what do we say of Paul VI when, on March 23, 1966, he put on the finger of Dr. Ramsey, secular and Freemason, Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, his “new conciliar ring” and then imparted, together with him, the “blessing” to those present? And what do we say when, on June 3, 1971, he received in a public audience, at the Vatican, members of the “Masonic Lodge” of the B’nai B’rith, the most powerful Masonic Lodge, restricted to Jews?

23 Vol. II, p. 156.

24 Cited by René Valnève: “Teilhard l’Apostate”, Volpe, 1971 edition, p. 52.

25 “Chiesa Viva”, July-August 1993.

26 Encyclical “Humani Generis”.

27 H. Urs von Balthasar: “Father Henri de Lubac”, Jaca Book, 1978 edition, p. 20-21.

28 Father Rosario Esposito, cited works, Nardini, 1987 edition, p. 420

And how do you explain that, through Cardinal Bea, the Freemasons managed to obtain, at the Council, the “Decree” on “Religious Freedom”, and exulted at the victory of “false ecumenism” and “collegiality”?

Paul VI’s relentless, stealthy action had met their hopes: the advent of “democracy” in the Church, and, through it, the so much yearned-for realization of a “universal religion”, which was then set off with contracting, syncretistically, the “Ecumenical Movement” of Assisi. One further evidence lies in the words of Cardinal Franz Köenig, whom, closing a Convention, at Prague, on “The Operative Alliance Between Religion and Science”, said: «The best forces of humanity must converge toward a new cosmopolitism, which cannot be realized without a rediscovery of the spiritual values, capable of leading humanity toward an harmonious communal living»29.

Indeed, is the “Masonic presence”, perhaps, not distinctly visible, by now, even in the “Ecumenical Movement” and in the structures of the “World Council of the Churches”?

But to those familiar with the Gnostic principle at the base of Freemasonry, the intrusion of Freemasonry in each and every “Church” will not certainly come as a surprise. In England, for example, the early statutes of the “Mother Lodge” were the work of an ecclesiastic, and ever since Anglicanism and Freemasonry have been enjoying a perfect marriage. But also the totalities of the Protestant “Monarchies” were, and still are, “Masonic”. The “Slavic Monarchy” and the “Orthodox Churches” are Masonic as well.

And what about the Catholic Church?

The philosopher Augusto Del Noce, commenting on the topicality of Benson’s “Master of the World”, wrote: « (Catholicism is) re-incorporated into Masonic ecumenism, and in this sense Freemasonry can present itself, today, and so it does, as the most moderate of secularisms: Catholicism is not persecuted, but, in fact, re-incorporated. Under certain conditions, in unitary ecumenism a Catholic rite section may well subsist».

In fact, the infiltration of Freemasonry even in the ordinary ecclesiastical structures has been ongoing for many years now, as the renowned (pro)-Mason, the “Pauline” Father Rosario Esposito, also affirms: «… Brothers active in organized Catholic groups, heading diocesan and regional groups of lay people committed to the Catholic Action, in Scouting; and Brothers enjoying the full confidence of the bishops, to the point that, in some cases, they are proactively collaborating in the drafting of documents and Pastoral Letters, in which no one has ever found to be doctrinal.

Other collaborations are engaged in the operation of Catholic institutions and enterprises, such as educational institutes, hospitals, clinics, management of Charities and Philanthropic societies, which, from time immemorial, and even for recent constitution, include, in their executive Committees, the presence of the bishop and of managers of structures traditionally chaired by a Freemason»30.

Of this friendship between Paul VI and Freemasonry, let us see, as a sample, his official reception of a representation of the Jewish Freemasonry of the B’nai B’rith on June 3, 1971, in which he addressed them as “My dear friends”.

29 “Il Sabato” of November 24, 1990

30 Rosario Esposito, “The Great Concurrences Between Church and Freemasonry”, Florence, 1987, p. 387.

Is it credible that Paul VI ignored that the Jewish Freemasonry of the B’nai B’rith, in the United States, was (and still is) in a relentless struggle to wipe out all traces of Christian institutions?31

– On November 28, 1977, a dispatch of A.T.I. (Agenzia Telegrafica Giudea, or Jewish Telegraph Agency) informed that «The Conference of the Catholic Bishops and the “League Against Defamation” of the B’nai B’rith (ADL) announce the establishment of a common work group devoted to examining the issues relating to the faith of the Jews and of the Catholics»32.

– And on May 7, 1978, A.T.I. announced that on the coming May 10, Paul VI would be receiving the representatives of the B’nai B’rith, bearers of a 16 page “document” concerning the “Holocaust”33.

Freemasonry had thus not only entered the grass-root-Church, but also the echelon of the Vatican, both with clerics and secular. The siege is “closing-in round the throne of the Pope”34.

But that was nothing new. The penetration had been in progress for almost two centuries. John Paul II, for example, attributed the Pontifical suppression of the “Society of Jesus” to the work of Freemasonry35. That means the “enemies” of the Church have always found the gates of the Vatican quite more than ajar36. And that is even admitted into the highest levels37.

31 Emmanuel Ratier, “Mystères et Secrets du B’nai B’rith”, Facta Edition, Paris 1993. p. 105 and subsequent.

32 A.T.I., Dispatch n. 1744, year 1977.

33 “Lectures Françaises”, n. 254, June 1978, p. 6. The “B’nai B’rith” is the most powerful Masonic organization in the world, reserved exclusively to Jews. It entertained excellent relations with Cardinal Bea, whom, together with Jules Isaac, revised Catholic thinking on the Jews (weekly “Look” of January 25, 1966; Léon de Poncins, all his works).

34 “Il Sabato” of August 10, 1991, p. 25.

35 Lucio Brinelli, in “Il Sabato” of October 6, 1990.

36 “Il Sabato” of November 24, 1990; and “30 Giorni” of January 1991.

37 Raimondo Spiazzi: “Cardinal Siri Archbishop of Genoa From 1946 to 1987”, Bologna 1990

Father Raimondo Spiazzi, so writes, on the subject:

«As to the Conclaves of the future, Cardinal Siri used to say one should pray in order to obtain the grace that the prospective participants be truly free from any partisan influence and influx, not only of an ethical and political nature, but even social. And that no sect lay its hand onto these! [Conclaves] concluded he. He was referring to Freemasonry, which he claimed have knowledge, through direct confidences, received by affiliates, and knowing the schemes through which Freemasonry attempted to tighten its grip on men and organs of the Vatican, (He did not hesitate to name a few), and with the danger that threatened to extend its grip onto the Conclave. Perhaps it was also on the account of that, that he proposed the abolition of the secret: that all will take place in broad daylight!»

Pope Albino Luciani (Pope John Paul I August 26-September 28, 1978), too, was aware of the Masonic danger38. The Pope himself was quite controversial with the IOR [Institute for Religious Works; financial arm of the Vatican], at a time the “Corriere” [Corriere della Sera, Italy’s major daily] was in the hands of the IOR, and the P2 [outlawed P2 Masonic Lodge, of Grand Master Licio Gelli] chose its directors39. Naturally, however, the IOR could not have acted without the guarantee of the Secretary of State. Regrettably, even the public and repeated admission of the Grand Master Salvini as to the current affiliation to Freemasonry of various “High Ecclesiastics” fell on deaf ears. In another “letter” to Giordano Gamberini, (then Grand Master of Italian Freemasonry), Don Rosario Esposito says: «A series of Paul VI’s decisions are an indiscriminate opening toward Freemasonry»40.

And the lawyer Mario Bacchiega, of Rovigo, professor of History of Religions at a Roman faculty (and running a broadcast for a regional TV, explaining ideals and rites of the “Sons of the Light”), asked «What reliable testimonies exist as to the affiliation of Ecclesiastics to Freemasonry», replied: «I saw many clergymen at the Lodge, and never the lower clergy: they were always people of high office»41. Speaking of the Vatican II, Lawyer Mario Bacchiega affirmed twice – in December of 1962 and in November of 1963 – that the bishop of the Mexican diocese of Quernavaca, Monsignor Sergio Mendez Arceo, intervened pleading that the “excommunication” of the Freemasons be dropped, as “by now there were many ecclesiastics affiliated”42. And the former Grand Master of the “Grand Orient of Italy”, Giuliano Di Bernardo, on the “Corriere della Sera” of March 23, 1991, had said: «We will react to the attacks of the Pope; we have high Prelates in our midst».

38 “Il Sabato” of December 29, 1990.

39 “Il Giornale” of 8 March 1991; of April 30, 1991.

40 “Rivista Massonica”, August 1978, p. 371 and subsequent.

41 “Ecclesiasts in the Lodge” by Andrea Tornelli.

42 Idem

At this point the truthfulness of that “Pecorelli’s List” [Mino Pecorelli, director of “OP” (“Osservatorio Politico Internazionale”; or “International Political Observer”) Magazine, murdered for unveiling covert political and criminal schemes involving high ranking politicians, Freemasons, prelates, business, and organized crime] should come as no surprise. Even “Panorama” Magazine of August 10, 1976, carrying its own list – pretending to sell it as unreliable – does not hesitate, however, to state, «If the list were authentic, the Church would be in the hands of the Freemasons. Paul VI would be altogether surrounded by them. Nay, they would have been his great electors and would then have directed him in his most important decisions during these 13 years of pontificate. And, prior to that, they would have been the ones to push Vatican II Council onto the path of reforms».

All true – one would say – if one consider that the said “list” includes the names of two Cardinals (Villot and Casaroli) who, in point of fact, have been Secretary of State of the Holy See; and it also includes that of another Cardinal (Poletti) Paul VI appointed as Vicar of Rome, that is, as his own representative in the government of that diocese. And what to say, then, when that list also features as affiliated to Freemasonry other most authoritative Prelates, such as Cardinal Baggio and Cardinal Suenens and others?

Let us see, here, at least the most important and closer collaborators of Paul VI:

1st – Monsignor Pasquale Macchi

Paul VI’s personal Secretary from 1954 to 1978. Now then, even his name is included in the “Pecorelli’s List”, amongst the “alleged Freemasons”, with each “entry” well detailed: Affiliation: 23/4/1958; Registration: 5463/2; Monogram: MAPA.

2nd – Cardinal Jean Villot

I also will talk, in detail, in Chapter VII of this book about his affiliation to Freemasonry. He was for long years Paul VI’s Secretary of State, and later, up until his death (March 9, 1979), John Paul I’s and John Paul II’s. His name was also published in the monthly “Lectures Françaises”, among other ecclesiastics affiliated to Freemasonry. The Cardinal wrote a letter to the director of the Magazine, denying “any contacts at any time with Freemasonry”. But it is the typical denial every affiliate is bound to, especially in the higher degrees. But, as always, the truth will come out. Even for him, therefore, for he was betrayed just after his death, resurrecting among his things also a book titled: “Life and Perspective of Traditional Freemasonry”, by Jean Tourniac, “Grand Orator” of the Grand National Lodge of France”. On the book title page, appear two dedications, scribbled out to his name: one, of the author himself; the other, of the Grand Master of the same Lodge. That, too, is another “evidence” of what General G. Leconte, of the French “Secret Services”, and Officer Masmay (see Chapter VII) had stated to me; namely: «even the parents of the Freemason Cardinal Villot were Freemasons of the Rosicrucian Lodge». After all, his theological positions and his ideals were always in the sphere of the various cardinals and bishops that appear in the list of Pecorelli’s “Osservatorio Politico” (OP) Magazine, where he also reports his exact “data”: Affiliation: 6/8/1966; Registration: 041/3; Monogram: JEANNI.

3rd – Cardinal Agostino Casaroli

He, too, appears in Mino Pecorelli’s list, with these “entries”: Affiliation: 28/9/1957; Registration: 41/076; Monogram: CASA. The Pauline, Father Rosario Esposito, in his book: “The Great Concurrences Between Church and Freemasonry”43 refers that Casaroli, on October 20, 1985, on the occasion of the celebrations of the 40th anniversary of the United Nations held, at St. Patrick’s Church, in New York, gave “a long-winded homily”, whose contents “confirm that the concurrences between the Church and Freemasonry may be considered actually achieved”44.

41 “Ecclesiasts in the Lodge” by Andrea Tornelli.

42 Idem.

43 Rosario Esposito, “The Great Concurrences Between Church and Freemasonry”, Nardini Editions, Florence 1987.

44 As above, p. 210.

That Cardinal Casaroli is a “Freemason” is also proven by his excessive praise for the Jesuit heretic and Freemason Teilhard de Chardin, in an unspeakable “letter” he sent, on behalf of the Pope, to Monsignor Poupard, rector of Paris’ “Istitut Catholique”, on the occasion of the celebration of the centenary of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s birth. The Grand Master of the Grand Orient, Jacques Mitterand, in an address to the General Assembly of the Lodge held at Paris from September 3 to 7, 1967, had claimed that Freemasonry was the basis of Jacques Mitterand’s publications, and had openly said: «one fine day, there sprung up from their ranks a genuine scientist: Pierre Teilhard de Chardin», underscoring that «the ideas of the Jesuit Teilhard coincide with those of Freemasonry». Now, only a “Freemason” could have written such a “Letter”, giving body to a heretic apostate – mediocre scientist, mediocre philosopher, and mediocre theologian, – whom, to a Dominican friend (one who had in turn thrown away the habit), had manifested his plans of “renovation” of the Church in a neo-Modernist key. Counsel Ermenegildo Benedetti, former “Grand Orator” of the “Grand Orient of Italy” (thus “number two”, behind the Grand Master – who was then Lino Salvini – of Italian Freemasonry), also offered a further “evidence” of Casaroli’s affiliation to Freemasonry. In fact, on the weekly “OGGI” of June 17, 1981, speaking to the “Brothers” he had declared: «It was said of Monsignor Bettazzi, of Monsignor Casaroli (…). Let there be no doubt about it: that it was not mere talk; that it was ‘confidential information’ we at the top of Italian Freemasonry used to exchange». (I would have you note that “not mere talk”, but authentic “confidential information”).

Finally, in confirmation that Cardinal Casaroli is a “Freemason”, I can note that even the present Pope, John Paul II, made admission of it. In fact, on October 15, 1984, I received the visit of an archbishop (with his secretary), close collaborator of the Pope.

Among other things, he told me he had shown the Pontiff my article, “The New Concordat” (on “Chiesa Viva” n° 145), whose first signatory was in fact Cardinal Casaroli. Now, the Archbishop told me that he had remarked to the Pope that my article emphasized Cardinal Casaroli’s inclusion in the Masonic lists. The Pope, then, pounding three times his fist on the table, cried out: «I know! I know! I know!».

4th – Cardinal Ugo Poletti

He was Vicar of Rome, thus Paul VI’s representative in the government of the Diocese of Rome. He also appears on Mino Pecorelli’s “list” of “alleged Freemasons”, with detailed “entries”: Affiliation: 17/2/1969; Registration: 43/179; Monogram: UPO.

5th – Cardinal Sebastiano Baggio

He, too, is enrolled in the Masonic lists45, with detailed “entries”: Affiliation: 14/8/1957; Registration: 85/2640; Monogram: SEBA. He was Prefect of the “Congregation for the Bishops”, and, therefore, in charge of the appointment of the new bishops, in spite of his alleged affiliation to the Masonic sect, hence he could flood dioceses worldwide with those affiliated to Lodges, or pro-Freemasons Figures.

6th – Cardinal Joseph Suenens

He too appears in the “Pecorelli’s list”, with detailed “entries”: Affiliation: 15/6/1967; Registration: 21/64; Monogram: IESU. I would have you note, moreover, that he was a most authoritative exponent of the “Pax Christi”, an organization in which political-social commitment overwhelms all of the religious commitment. It also proves his manifesto on disarmament of May of 1982, wherein God, Jesus, the Virgin Mary, and the Saints are not even mentioned, while the whole discussion is hinged on the prospect of “World Government”, or “Universal Republic” which Freemasonry has been longing for ever since its inception, as it is seen in the “Anderson’s Constitutions” of 1723, fundamental text of the whole Masonic sect.

On September 24, 1970, Suenens had already held a conference, at a Masonic gathering, organized by the Jewish High Freemasonry of the B’nai B’rith, in which he had brought the Church closer to that Masonic sect which the pre-conciliar Church had always anathemized46.

It is no secret that he was also one of the great electors of Paul VI’s47, who, afterwards, promptly appointed him as “Moderator” of the Council. But Cardinal Suenens, for the nomination of Paul VI – which was preferred, agreeable, and determined – attended a sort of “pre-Conclave”, held at Grottaferrata, [a village on the outskirts of Rome, near the village of Castelgandolfo, where the Pontifical summer residence is located] in the villa of Umberto Ortolani, the famous member of Licio Gelli’s P2 Lodge48. Congressman Andreotti, in his book: “A ogni morte di Papa” [literally: “At Every Pope’s Passing”; also Italian for saying “Once in a blue moon”], speaking of that gathering, recounts that one of the participants told him: «more or less seriously, that the canonical majority was already wrapped up»49.

45 “Panorama”, “OP”, “Introibo”, “Lectures Francaises”, “Agenzia Euroitalia”.

46 Yann Moncomble: “Les Professionels de l’Antiracisme”, by Yann Moncomble, Paris 1987, p. 277.

47 “30 Giorni” of July 7, 1992, p. 45.

48 “30 Giorni” of September 3, 1993, in “His Eminence’s Friends” by Andrea Tornielli, p. 37, subtitled: “The Conclave at the Villa”.

49 Also on the same subject, “The Non-Elected Pope” by Bennylai, Laterza, 1993 edition, p. 202.

7th – Bishop Annibale Bugnini

Paul VI put him in charge of the implementation of the “Liturgical Revolution”, the one who Pope John XXIII had kicked out of the Pontifical University in which he was teaching. But Paul VI called him back, appointing him First Secretary of the “Concilium ad exequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia”, and, afterwards, Secretary of the “Congregation for the Divine Worship”. But when a Cardinal produced “evidence” of Monsignor Bugnini’s affiliation to Freemasonry50 to Paul VI, he was forced to send him away from Rome (but why not dismiss him?) dispatching him as a “pro-Nuncio” to Teheran (Iran). In order to understand who this monsignor, Freemason and revolutionary of the Liturgy, really was, I would have you read what “Avvenire” magazine – “Religious Information” (of February 24, 1973, p. 5) reported: «(…) Two ceremonies (Mass for the students of the Catholic schools, and Mass of the youth)… also intended to be an example of liturgical experimentation, carefully studied and properly implemented: first, through sacred dances and an “Anaphora” [Eucharistic prayer of the Roman Rite] prepared for the occasion; then with the accompaniment of an authentic ‘pop’ band. After attending the two liturgies, Monsignor Annibale Bugnini, Secretary of the Congregation for the Divine Worship, said it had been the highlight of the celebration; a great example of the ultimate solution for the problems that must be solved in the liturgical movement: the recovery in the liturgy of the traditional exterior sign of the sacred, such as dance, and the employment of new instruments and chants, adapted to the mentality of young people today». It was and is a “Masonic scheme”, destined to become a sad and distressing reality.

8th – Bishop Paul Marcinkus

He was President of the “Istituto Opere di Religione” (IOR). He is also listed among the “alleged Freemasons” of the “Pecorelli’s List”, with “entries”: Affiliation: 21/681967; Registration: 43/649; Monogram: MARPA. He was involved in obscure financial dealings, in very close collaboration with Freemasonry51.

50 Also the “list” of the freemasons, published by counsel and journalist Mino Pecorelli, on his “L’Osservatore Politico” magazine (“OP”), with dates and entries: Affiliation: 23/4/1963; Registration: 1365/75; Monogram: BUAN.

51 Nick Tosches: “The Sindona Mystery”, Sugar ed., 1986, p. 138. “La Stampa” of January 10, 1994, under the title: “Di Pietro [renown District Attorney in the so called “Clean-Hands” criminal proceedings, and currently a Senator] Investigates the Monsignor of the IOR”.

For reasons of space, the names of the Prelates affiliated to Freemasonry reported here are not exhaustive. The names that appear in the ranks of command of Paul VI, are many more than those cited. Here it will suffice to name two more, of major significance:

Cardinal Köenig and Cardinal Liénart.

9th – Cardinal Franz Köenig

This “Freemasonic cardinal” was Archbishop of Vienna, where he was Primate. He underwent two “legal proceedings”, both of which recognized his affiliation to Freemasonry. (He was acquitted for the only reason that “Freemasonry” in Austria is legally recognized). A German writer, E. K., “could prove”, in court, the affiliation of Cardinal Köenig to Freemasonry. Had his been a false accusation, the court would have sentenced him to a year in prison for “perjury”; on the contrary, there was not even a fine52.

Even the Catholic newspaper “DRM”, through its director, Benedikt Günther, spoke of that “lawsuit” the Cardinal had filed against that German teacher and writer, E. K., whom, however, “could prove Cardinal Köenig’s affiliation to Freemasonry”. But the director also wrote that on April 18, 1967, another writer had already informed the Cardinal of a scandal in the parish church of Vienna-Hetzendorf, in which there were three blasphemous emblems, painted by order of a Freemason of a high degree, but that the Cardinal never answered that letter in over ten years. However, that Director of “DRM”, in his “registered letter”, reiterates that, in that “Proceedings” against the Cardinal “evidence has been forwarded of your affiliation to the Masonic Lodge”… whereas against that writer no condemnation was issued. And he wraps up his letter inviting Cardinal Köenig, for the salvation of his soul, “to immediately leave the Masonic Lodge”. Another evidence of Cardinal Köenig’s affiliation to “Freemasonry” may be traced in his “greetings” to the Convention of Assisi, on August 22, 1988. The inventor of that “Peace Council” was the representative of the “New Age”, Heizsafrer, who looks forward to the advent of a “world religion”, which is indeed the Masonic scheme53.

Now, the “Freemason” Cardinal Köenig sent his “greetings” to that Convention. It must be noted that the “true Peace” of Cardinal Köenig lies in the “Nuova Spes”, which provides for a “New International Order”. A “peace”, that is, which corresponds to the new Masonic image of the “new man”54.

Even the official historian of Italian Freemasonry, Professor Aldo Mola, points to Köenig as a member of Freemasonry – based on information from a “very high and very well informed dignitary from Palazzo Giustiniani” – as a member of a covert Roman Lodge55.

Another serious evidence against him is: that he, together with the Grand Master Delegate of Austrian Freemasonry, Dr. Kurt Baresch, was the promoter of the Commission that approved the “Declaration” of Lichtenau of July 5, 1970, drafted by Rolf Appel, member of the Senate of the Grand United Lodges of German Freemasonry. It was elaborated and undersigned by a Masonic-Catholic Joint Commission. It sets out with an entreaty to the “Grand Architect of the Universe”, that is, to the god of Freemasonry, and it concludes looking forward to the revocation of the countless condemnations issued by the Catholic Church against that sect, particularly of the Canon Law Code’s Canons of 1917, which provide for the “excommunication” of Freemasons. Finally, one must not forget that, at the Council, it was Cardinal Köenig who recommended to the Conciliar Fathers to “finally take into consideration the ideas (!!) of Teilhard de Chardin on evolutionism”.

10th – Cardinal Achille Liénart

He appears as “Freemason” in various lists, as in “Introibo” of July, 1976 and on the Italian weekly “Il Borghese” [The Bourgeois]. He was “initiated” to Freemasonry at Cambrai in 1912, and in 1924, he was even elevated to 30th degree of the ancient and accepted Scottish rite. The Freemason Monsieur B., (healed, then, at Lourdes on July 19, 1932; with the healing recognized also by the “Bureau des Con statations” on July 18, 1933) narrated that, at the time in which he frequented the Lodges, he used to meet there with Cardinal Liénart. It must be known that it was Cardinal Liénart who on October 14, 1962, during the First Session of the works of Vatican II, sparked the rebellion against the study and work plans that the various Commissions of the Roman Curia had prepared, rejecting even the names the Curia had proposed for the composition of the various Commissions56. Cardinal Liénart, in addition, was also one of the leaders of that organized group of Northern European Conciliar Fathers of a liberal bent, who took control of the Council, steering it toward those new and unexpected shores which are still destroying the Church. It is quite understandable, therefore, that this Freemason Cardinal, on his deathbed, had exclaimed: «Humanly speaking, the Church is lost»57.

52 “Chiesa Viva”, n. 68, p. 18-19.

53 “Der Schwarze Brief” of August 11, 1988.

54 Idem.

55 Aldo Mola, “History of Italian Freemasonry From the Origins to Our Days”, Bompiani, 1992 edition, p. 744.

56 Peter Hebblethwaite, “John XXIII, The Pope of the Council”, Rusconi, 1989 edition, p. 618.

57 “Tradition-Information” n. 7, p. 21.

At this juncture, perhaps one will ask oneself whether the authenticity of those “Masonic lists” had been verified or not, for it would be disconcerting that Freemasonry, condemned and denounced by the pre-conciliar Church from time immemorial, could, today, after Paul VI, come to acquire such an enormous power – even though still hidden and uncontrollable – upon the entire Catholic Church. Thus before wrapping up our theme on the opening of Paul VI to Freemasonry, it is opportune that we say a word about the components in our possession in order to corroborate the authenticity of those “lists” which were the object of so many discussions.

First of all, it is opportune to pause on the question of the “secret” of that Freemasonry sect, for Freemasonry has always been and still is a “Secret Society”, whose doings are carried out unbeknownst to all, and whose members remain surrounded by the most rigorous mystery. That has been demonstrated, of late, even by the publicized occurrence of the P2 Lodge, which enlisted people of the most diverse and contradictory labels, both political and ideological. Hence it is pure simplemindedness to affirm that the P2 was a “Deviated” Lodge, when the official historian of Italian Freemasonry, Professor Aldo Mola in person, in an “interview” to “Il Sabato” magazine of December 26, 1992, affirmed that the P2 «was not a deviated lodge, but it was necessary to sacrifice it so that it would not be discovered that true Freemasonry was covert». Having clarified that, we can move on to the reliability of the principal “list” appeared on “OP” (Osservatorio Politico Internazionale) Magazine of September 12, 1978, thus subsequent to that which came out on “Panorama” Magazine of August 10, 1976.

Hence, we point out:

1st – That some cardinals requested clarifications as to the lists, and that Paul VI was forced to comply, entrusting the task to Monsignor Benelli, whom, in turn, passed the task over to Carabinieri General Enrico Mino58. This, on the basis of the investigations, expressed his conviction that the list was reliable59. Cardinal Siri, too, used the service of General Mino, in mid-1977, for investigations in “Panorama” Magazine. Unfortunately, the General passed away on October 31 that year, in the Calabria region, on Mount Rovello, under more than suspicious circumstances60, carrying with him to the grave the outcome of his investigation. But there remain, however, some mysterious telephone calls in which Licio Gelli (Venerable of the P2 Lodge) spoke of the “succession” to General Mino, prior to the General’s tragic accident.

2nd – The “Pecorelli’s List” found credit even in the Vatican, where a young employee – nephew of a (well known) ecclesiastic (Father P. E.) – had handed a series of delicate “documents” to Monsignor Benelli, then Substitute of the Secretary of State, who made him swear «that he was not lying about so grave a matter»61. Some photocopies of those “documents” were also in the possession of Cardinal Staffa62. I had “assurance” of this “fact” from a cardinal of the Curia63, who later also gave me some photocopies of those same “documents”.

3rd – The “Card Numbers”, reported on the “Pecorelli’s List”, confer a more than credible spin, since Pecorelli was a member of the P2 Lodge (and thus in the know of “secret things”), but also for the reason that, with that list, he had just invited the scarcely elected Pope Luciani to a rigorous control, with the intention of offering a valid contribution to the transparency of the Catholic Church Herself. In any case, that “list” should have sparked off either a shower of denials or a purge in the ecclesial ranks. On the contrary, not a single “denial” was to be had. As for “purges”, besides, the newly elected Pontiff did not even have the time, perhaps even “because” Pope Luciani (JOHN PAUL I), “who had manifested the intention of having a hand in the issue of the IOR and shed a light as to the list of alleged Prelates affiliated to Freemasonry”, He, too, passed away in circumstances and ways as yet unknown64. What is more, Mino Pecorelli, the author of that “list”, was gunned down a few months later, on March 20, 1979; hence, with him, were buried all of the other “secrets” concerning that Masonic sect in his possession.

Now, one could ask oneself: why is it that all of the “listed” in that “Masonic list” have never come together in order to deny that public denunciation, complete with detailed “entries” (Affiliation, Registration, Monogram), asking the courts for a clarifying investigation, at least on the graphological analysis of the acronyms at the foot of the documents? How not to recognize, then, that that lack of denials and that prolonged silence are more than eloquent as they take on the value of circumstantial evidence of the greatest import?

The only one to be removed from office was – as we noted – Monsignor Bugnini, the main author of that revolutionary liturgical reform that upset, in a Lutheran form, the bi-millennial rite of the Holy Mass, but it was only after the presentation to Paul VI of the “evidence” of his belonging to the Masonic sect, that he was sent away from Rome and dispatched as a “pro-Nuncio” to Iran.

However, another serious confirmation of the “Pecorelli’s list” appeared also on the weekly “OGGI” of June 17, 1981, already mentioned, under the title: “Salvini Confided to Me Names of People Above Suspicions“. It is an interview with Counsel Ermenegildo Benedetti, of Massa Carrara, former “Grand Orator” of the “Grand Orient of Italy”, and thus N° 2 of Italian Freemasonry. Now, in that interview, he said: “It was being said of Monsignor Bettazzi, of Monsignor Casaroli, of Cardinal Poletti, of Father Caprile, writer of “Civiltà Cattolica” magazine, and of Bishop Marcinkus, the man of Vatican finances, the so called “Banker of God”. The buzz about these people had been around since 1970. Let it be no doubt about it: it was not mere talk; it was “confidential information” we at the top of Italian Freemasonry used to pass on to one another”. And here, I would have you note:

1st, that the names uttered by him are all to be found in the “Pecorelli’s list”; 2nd, that they were not “voices”, but “confidential information”, current in the high degrees of Italian Freemasonry. Now, no Prelate involved has ever come forward to sue the high Masonic dignitary, despite the wide diffusion, on a national scale, of that weekly.

58 “30 Giorni” of November 11, 1992, p. 30 and subsequent.

59 As above, p. 32.

60 “30 Giorni” of November 11, 1992, p. 34-35

61 “Il Sabato” of August 10, 1991, p. 21 and subsequent.

62 On “30 Giorni” of June 6, 1992, three are reproduced.

63 We omit, here, the name of this Cardinal, as he did not authorize us to publicize it.

64 Also “30 Giorni” of September 9, 1993, p. 44-45.

The theme of our investigation may as well stop at this stage, at the “mole” Pecorelli, who was able to infiltrate the archives of the “Grand Orient” and extract those confidential documents.

Having outlined, in this way, the boundaries of our work, we may also comprehend the question that, certainly, will spring up in many minds: «If such was the situation of 1976-78, who, then, was Paul VI to hand the Church over to so little worthy a staff of Cardinals and Bishops, radically different from those who preceded them?».

A shattering question, which immediately brings to mind a writing of Prince Scortesco, German cousin of Prince Borghese, chair of the Conclave that elected Montini Supreme Pontiff; a “writing” containing the following information about the Conclave of June 21, 1963: «During the Conclave, a Cardinal stepped out of the Sistine Chapel, met with representatives of the B’nai B’rith, announced to them the election of
Cardinal Siri. These replied saying that the persecutions against the Church would resume immediately. Returning to the Conclave, he had Montini elected».

Here, it would come natural to say: no comment! To me, however, that election of Paul VI brings to mind other elections of Popes, such as that of Pius IX, upon whom the Masonic sect had placed vague hopes of reconciliation with the “new ideas”. What did happen, instead, is well known. Pius IX, instructed by his own experiences, and, above all, enlightened by the Divine Light, through his “Syllabus” reduced Liberalism, that is, Masonry, into dust. Upon his death, however, Freemasonry believed the hour had come for their revival and their triumph over the Church.

The Freemason Leone Gambetta65, when, on February 20, 1878, Leo XIII was elected, thus wrote to a friend: «This shall be a great day. The peace coming from Berlin, and, perhaps, the reconciliation with the Vatican. The new Pope has been elected: He is that elegant and sophisticated Cardinal Pecci, Bishop of Perugia, whom Pius IX had attempted to snatch the tiara from, naming him Camerlengo. This Italian, more of a diplomat than he is an ecclesiastic, has survived all the plots of the Jesuits and of the foreign clerics. He is Pope, and the name he took of Leo XIII seems to me the best of omens. I greet this event loaded with promises. He will not break away openly from the traditions and declarations of his predecessor, but his conduct, his acts, and his relations will be more meaningful than his words, and if he does not die too soon, we may hope in a convenient union with the Church».

The next day he wrote another letter: «Paris, February 22, 1978 – I am infinitely grateful to this new Pope for the name he dared to take: he is a holy opportunist. Could we cut a deal? Who knows? As the Italians say».

But Leo XIII “did not die too soon”. God granted him 25 years of reign, and the Masonic sect had to postpone that “convenient union with the Church”. In fact, Leo XIII, in four different occasions, steadfastly confirmed Pius IX’s “Syllabus”, and truthfully said of himself: «Our struggle has not only the defense and integrity of religion as an objective, but also that of civil society, and the restoration of the principles that are the foundation of peace and prosperity». Freemasonry, however, always hoped in a speedy reconciliation with the Church.

On the Masonic Magazine “Acacia” of September, 1903, out came an article of F. Hiran, titled: “The Death of Leo XIII“, in which he invoked a Pope who would “undo the ties of dogmatism stretched to the extreme, who would not pay heed to fanatical theologians and accusers of heresies, who would let the exegetists work as they pleased, who would recommend and practice tolerance toward the other religions, who would not renew the excommunication of Freemasonry”66.

65 Lèon Gambetta: French politician, Representative, House Speaker, and Prime Minister. He died in 1882.

66 Enrico Delassus, “The Problem of the Present Hour”, Desclèe and C. Tipografi-Editori 1907, vol. 1, p. 305.

But Freemasonry was to be disillusioned again, for the hand of the Holy Spirit never appeared so evident as in the election of Pius X. Unfortunately, the underlying maladies of the Church of the Vatican II had long been around: the temptation of Protestantism, of Marxism, and of Modernism, was already in the subconscious of many Catholics; Vatican II would create the necessary conditions in order that these tendencies would come to light and be retained as a new orthodoxy. Using the colorful expression of Cardinal John Heenan, Vatican II became a sort of “ecclesiastical safari”; to others, instead, it was the long awaited occasion, and they, well organized, were able to “hijack” it in the wanted direction. The German group, then, with their allies and with a “Blitzkrieg” tactic, continuously pulverized and demoralized their adversaries, skillfully using pressure groups. Thus the majority of the Fathers gave in, often involuntarily, not to be branded as a “Passatist” by the mass media, all hostile, by now, to Tradition. In any case, the Conciliar documents, rather than the work of the bishops that signed them, were the work of the “experts”, the fifth column of Modernism, whose main concern was the ecumenism at any costs. And thus went Vatican II, whose ambiguous texts will cause the Anglican observer Gregory Baum to say: «The Council has, therefore, admitted that the Church of Christ is something wider than the Roman Catholic Church“; and the other Protestant observer, Oscar Cullmann, “All of the texts are formulated so as not to shut any door, and will not present in the future any obstacle to discussions among Catholics, nor to the dialogue with non-Catholics, as it was customary, with the dogmatic decisions of the previous Councils“». Well, it is only in this neo-Modernist light that the “opera omnia” of Paul VI during and following Vatican II, ought to be seen.

THE “MASONIC PLAN” FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

– «Our ultimate goal is that of Voltaire of the French Revolution: namely, the complete annihilation of Catholicism and even of the Christian idea… With the passport of hypocrisy, we can conspire with all our opportunity and reach, little by little, our goal. (…). What we must try and wait for, as the Jews await the Messiah, is a Pope according to our needs. (…). There is little to be done with old Cardinals and with prelates of decided character. (…).

You must aim at the Youth: You must seduce the young! It is necessary that you attract the youth, without them knowing it, under the banner of secret societies. (…). You want to revolutionize Italy? Look at the Pope of which we have painted a picture. Do you want to establish the kingdom of the elect upon the throne of the prostitute of Babylon? Let the clergy walk under your flag, believing they are walking under the banner of the Apostolic Keys! Widen your networks; extend them to the heart of the sacristy, seminaries and convents (…). You must look for friends and ones that will lead to the foot of the Apostolic See. So you’ll discover a revolution in a tiara and cape, preceded by the cross and banner, a revolution that will need a little help to set fire to the four corners of the world. The conspiracy against the Roman See should never be confused with other projects. (…). None that conspire against Rome! (…).

Catholicism, and even still less the monarchy, is not afraid of the tip of a dagger, but these two bases of social order can fall under the weight of corruption. They never tire of a bribe. (…) Vice is popularized in multitudes. Those who breathe with the five senses, and those who drink, will be drenched (…). Make hearts vicious and you’ll have no more Catholics. Remove the priest from work, from the altar and from virtue: have him look elsewhere to occupy his thoughts and his time. Make him idle, glutinous (…); have him become ambitious, intriguing and perverse.

We have undertaken a great corruption, the corruption of the people through the clergy and clergy through us, the corruption that must lead to the burial of the Church! The aim is very good for ambitious men like us (…). The best dagger to assassinate the Church and strike at its heart is corruption. So work towards this end». (Enrico Delassus, “Il problema dell’ora presente”, Desclèe e C. Tipografi-Editori 1907, Vol. I, p. 582-625).

– Pope Leo XIII, in his 1884 encyclical against Freemasonry: “Humanum genus“, having recognized the division of mankind into two adverse and opposing camps: «the first is the kingdom of God on earth, that is the true Church of Jesus Christ» and «the second is the kingdom of Satan…». Further on, he affirms «The ultimate goal of Freemasons being to persecute Christianity with relentless hatred, and that they will never be at peace, – not ever until they will not see all religious institutions founded by the Popes on the earth». The Pope notes that «Wanting to destroy the religion and the Church founded by God, Himself, and His assurance of immortal life (…) is signal folly and audacious impiety…»!

– After the publication of the “Humanum genus,” The Bulletin of the Symbolic Scottish Grand Lodge expressed, in these terms, the thought of the sect: «The Freemasonry cannot help but thank the Supreme Pontiff of the last encyclical. Leo XIII, with unquestionable authority, and with great luxury of evidence has demonstrated once again that there is an unbridgeable gulf between the Church of which he is the representative, and the Revolution, of which Freemasonry is the right arm. It is good that the skeptics cease to entertain vain hopes. All must get used to the understanding that one must come forward to re-choose between the old order that rests on Revelation and new order which does not recognize any other foundations then that of science and human reason, in the spirit of authority and spirit of liberty». (Enrico Delassus, “Il problema dell’ora presente”, Desclèe e C. Tipografi-Editori 1907, vol. I, p. 39).

The cemetery Verolavecchia, near Brescia (Italy), where the graves of family Alghisi (the maternal family of Paul VI) rest. At the base of the right tomb, dedicated to family Alghisi, the bas-relief erected with those Masonic symbols.

The “bronze door” at St. Peter’s Basilica – Rome, now with 5 figures*

The “Doors of Good and Evil”

This is the “bronze door” of the sculptor, Luciano Minguzzi, called: “The Door of Good and Evil”.

It was put into place in 1977 and created in honor of the birthday of Paul VI.

When it was inaugurated, the “Panel of Good”, panel N° 12, featured “The Second Vatican Council”. It included the Four Council Fathers between John XXIII and Paul VI. While John XXIII and the four other Council Fathers were carved with the face looking forward, Paul VI (the last on the right – a total of six figures* in all) was hand carved in profile, to present, clearly visible, his left hand with a clear Masonic symbol “the five-pointed star”, or “Masonic Pentalfa”.

Shortly after the inauguration of the “Bronze Door”, the undersigned [Fr. Luigi Villa], went to see that “new door” of the Basilica of St. Peter and observed well, seeing that Masonic sign on the back of the left hand of Paul VI.

Immediately, I went to a Cardinal to denounce what I had seen. The Cardinal assured me that he would immediately take care of it. In fact, shortly after, when I returned to Rome, I went to review the “bronze door”, I noticed that the Masonic sign on the back of the left hand of Pope Paul VI had been scraped off: you could see the red copper. Realizing they were discovered, then, they had seen to it: first, to scrape off the Masonic symbol. Then, as I saw on my return to Rome once again, they replaced the entire panel No. 12 with another, the current (see photo above right) on which appeared not more than six figures, but five, so far as I could see! (For a better understanding of the great significance of “five-pointed star”, carved on the back of the left hand of Paul VI, as it appeared on the first tile N° 12, see Appendix II: “Five-pointed Star” “The Signature” of the Pontificate of Paul VI). *Initially, there were 6 figures; see page 69

IN EMINENTI-ON FREEMASONRY
CLEMENT XII APRIL 28, 1738

CHAPTER V

HIS “OPENING TO UNIVERSAL DEMOCRACY”

Thus to Paul VI, man is above everything else, which is why you see in him and in his writings, more zeal to defend the rights and interests of man rather that of God’s. He mixes humanism with Christianity. Unquestionably, the Christian religion more than any other is permeated with humanism, moreover She teaches, in the first place, the love of a God who has given His life for man, but for man’s eternal salvation. Paul VI, on the contrary, predicts the advent of a peaceful society, thanks to the establishment of a “conscience of humanity”, by way of natural means; which is a real utopia with a taste of “heresy”, since man, after the “Original sin”, is more inclined to evil than to good: egoism, greed, vengeance, hatred, wickedness of all kinds, hence it can but be anything but utopia. How can this dream of utopian societies in which all men love one another, respect one another, come to be if you do not first inculcate respect for the “Rights of God”? And that is an elementary and fundamental truth Paul VI continuously chose to ignore, placing always the accent onto “human rights”, as an echo of the French Revolution of 1789. A “new Christianity”, therefore, but one unable to generate the “Charity” the World needs.

Now, do the Pope and the Bishops ignore the consequence of this “cult of Man”? Don’t they know how many and which crimes have been committed, in the aftermath of that Satanic French Revolution, precisely in the name of “Human Rights”? Have they forgotten that it was revolutionary France to put Europe to the sword and blood, claiming to “liberate”, in this way, “the oppressed peoples”? Naturally, the “Charter” of “Human Rights” contains also some worthy things; yet these are not the brainchild of the Revolution, since they existed already in the Gospel. In any case, those writings contain a perverse ideology, serving Man as a supreme being, and excluding any Right of God, and God Himself. That is why Pius IX said: «The French Revolution was inspired by Satan himself. Its goal is the destruction Christianity from top to bottom»1. However, even the principles of “Liberty-Equality-Fraternity” are false, not in themselves, but because they are not subordinated to God and to His laws. They could be held as valid only by alienating oneself from the spirit that has dictated them, from the spirit that animates them, from the spirit that applies and manifests them, cunningly confusing the true with the false and the false with the true. In fact, the “Declaration” of 1789 claimed that the will of the “sovereign people” replaced the will of the “SOVEREIGN GOD”; it claimed that human laws take the place of divine laws; claimed that “natural rights” be above “supernatural rights”. In a word: the alleged “Human Rights” were to replace “Jesus Christ’s Eternal Rights”. Hence, in conscience, a Catholic must absolutely distance himself from these principles of the French Revolution, and cannot accept the spirit that dictated them, nor their interpretation, nor their application.

Paul VI, on the contrary, held a different view. He regarded the “Charter of Human Rights” as the version of a modern Gospel. St. Pius X had written: «… They fear not to draw between the Gospel and the Revolution blasphemous comparisons»2. Paul VI, on the other hand, filled his entire Pontificate with a relentless preaching of “Human Rights”, both of individuals and Nations3. «Something new was being perceived – said he – They were ideas of living, concurrences between the great principles of the Revolution, which did nothing but appropriate some Christian concepts: fraternity, equality, progress, desire of elevating the underprivileged classes. Hence, all this is Christian; and yet it had borne, then, an anti-Christian symbol, secular, anti-religious, tending to misrepresent this part of the evangelical heritage, aiming at developing human life in an elevated and noble sense»4.

It must be remarked, here, that it is not an “anti-Christian symbol”, but rather an “anti-Christian spirit” that has appropriated the Christian concepts in order to turn them against God. Deplorably, the Conciliar Constitution: “The Church in the Modern World”, reads: «The Church, by virtue of the Gospel committed to Her, proclaims the rights of man; She acknowledges and greatly esteems the dynamic movements of today by which these rights are everywhere fostered»5. After that false Conciliar assertion, this other assertion of Paul VI’s, at Manila, came as no surprise: «I feel the obligation of professing, here, more than anywhere else, “Human Rights”, for you and for all the poor of the world»6.

It would appear that, to Paul VI, to profess the “Gospel” or “Human Rights” are one and the same thing. And he went on: «The Church firmly believes that the promotion of “Human Rights” is a requirement of the Gospel, and that it must occupy a central place in Her ministry»7. “A requirement of the Gospel”? But where in the Gospel, a text – at least one! – is ever to be found encouraging the claim of “human rights”? But Paul VI goes on: «In Her desire to convert fully to Her Lord, and in order to better fulfill Her ministry, the Church intends to manifest respect and care of “Human Rights” within Herself»8. How odd! Paul VI affirms that, in order to convert fully “to the Lord” and that “to better fulfill Her ministry”, the Church must take “care of the Rights of Man”, whereas St. Paul Apostle, speaking of his apostolic ministry, wrote: «For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him Crucified»9. Sure, Paul VI is not St. Paul Apostle, nor did he share with him a common view. In fact, he continued to identify evangelization with the defense of Human Rights. He said: «In light of that which we perceive of our duty of evangelization, and with the strength of our duty to proclaim the Good News, we affirm our own determination to promote “Human Rights” and the reconciliation in the entire Church and in the world of today»10.

Let us recall, then, what Leo XIII wrote, on December 8, 1892: «Every familiarity should be avoided (…) with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the Revolution».

But Paul VI ignored that Voice of the Magisterium, too, and thus said: «Peace and Human Rights: such is the thought with which, we hope, men will commence the coming year… This message of ours cannot lack the strength that comes to it from that Gospel of which we are minister, the Gospel of Christ. It, too, like the Gospel, is addressed to everyone in the world»11.

1 Pius IX, September 8, 1849.

2 Pius X, “Letter on the Sillon”, n. 41.

3 Marcel de Corte, “Courrier de Rome”, September 25, 1971, n. 86, p. 8.

4 Paul VI, September 1, 1963.

5 Conciliar Constitution: “The Church in the World of Our Time”, n. 41.

6 Paul VI at Manila, November 29, 1970.

7 D. C. November 17, 1974, n. 1664, p. 965. And again in D. C. of March 7, 1976, n. 1693, p. 223.

8 Paul VI’s Address with the Father of the Synod, on October 23, 1974.

9 I Corinthians 2, 2.

10 D. C. November 17, 1974, n. 1664, p. 966.

11 Paolo VI, “Peace Day”, January 1, 1969.

Even on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the European Convention on “Human Rights”, Paul VI said: «In order to promote peace and carry out a moral reconstruction, in this post-war Europe, with her wounds still open, respect of “Human Rights” is of the utmost importance…»12.

Now, no one can doubt that the “human means” be the sole of real interest to Paul VI. “Of the utmost importance”, for the “moral reconstruction of Europe”, is not the Gospel, said he, but “Human Rights”, which are based: – upon the “cult of a Freedom” (one that does not take at all into account God and the duties toward Him); – upon the “myth of Equality” (source of continuous injustices and violence); – upon the “dream” of a “universal Fraternity” (gained at the price of concessions and betrayals, and through mere “human means”).

It must be noted, again, that the “Charter of Human Rights” has not only produced conflicts, upheavals, disputes, and wars, since man, separated from God, shall always dream of claiming his “rights” rather that his “duties”. In any case, Paul VI should have known that the sole means to check such upheavals is to “CHRISTIANIZE THE WORLD”, giving it Jesus Christ, preaching His Gospel, administering His Sacraments, through which comes to us the indispensable grace of God. Instead, in Maritain’s “Integral Humanism” we read that “Universal Democracy”, or the “City of the World”, must be founded upon “Conscience”, and must be based upon the “Charter” of “Human Rights”, that is, upon the laws of the modern city. “Human Rights” would thus be the transposition, in a modern key, of the Evangelical Message.

Paul VI affirms it, too: «This edifice which you are constructing – he said in his address to the United Nations – does not rest upon merely material and earthly foundations, for if so, it would be a house built upon sand; it rests above all on our own consciences…. Today, as never before, in an era marked by such human progress, there is need for an appeal to the moral conscience of man». But whence is to come the moral strength to sustain “moral conscience”, if not from Divine Grace? But Paul VI, in one of his Wednesday “Allocutions” (December 8, 1965), would represent his theory of “conscience”, considered as moral strength, onto which “religious sentiment” is engaged, saying: «It is in the expression of moral conscience that man frees himself from temptations… It is out of this moral conscience that the interests corrupting his dignity are overcome, the fears that render the heart base and inept are vanquished, the sentiments that generate the worthy, the honest, nay, the strong, are generated. It is this conscience the great characters of the human drama, the innocent, the heroes, the saints, draw their strength from…».

That is not the way a “cleric” is expected to speak, as the Grace of Christ Redeemer is ignored, without which we can do nothing. Here, the Sacraments are ignored. Here, prayer is ignored. But Paul VI, even in his “Message” to the UN of October 4, 1970, would reiterate: «What does this conscience, then, express with so much strength? “Human Rights”! The conscience of humanity grows stronger and stronger. Men rediscover this inalienable part of themselves which binds them together: the human in man». And on he goes: «Is “The Charter of Human Rights”: not only to claim for anyone, regardless of race, age, sex, and religion, respect for human dignity and for the conditions necessary for its practice, but also to translate, loud and clear, the unanimous aspiration of hearts and the universal testimony of consciences?». As one can see, this new “Humanist Decalogue” contains, to be sure, some fine words that stir the hearts: truths, justice, dignity, solidarity, equality, brotherhood, etc., but none of them sufficient to subdue the flesh, the world, the devil. Paul VI, on the contrary, resumes his “Humanist Decalogue” even in his “Brief [Pontifical letter] to the United Nations” of October 4, 1965: «A system apt to cater to public welfare such as might interest mankind as a whole, cannot subsists other than Yours, founded upon the respect of the rights, just freedom, and dignity of the person, with the removal of the fatal folly of war and of the harmful fury of pride». Words in the wind, these of Paul VI’s, which shall never yield the smallest act of virtue, or a renunciation, or a sacrifice, or an evangelical forgiveness, or any other Christian good. I would have one read, therefore, what St. Pius X wrote: «… According to them, man will be a man truly worthy of the name only when he has acquired a strong, enlightened, and independent consciousness, able to do without a master, obeying only himself, and able to assume the most demanding responsibilities without faltering. Such are the big words by which human pride is exalted»13. But neither Christ, nor the Grace of the Sacraments, nor the Law of the Gospel dwell in Paul VI’s mind, committed, as he was by now, on the naturalist level. In fact, at Bombay, on December 3, 1964, he would stress once again that: «The human race is undergoing profound changes and is groping for the guiding principles and the new forces that will lead it into the world of the future». But what kind of a “Vicar of Christ” has this Paul VI been? «We must – said he – become closer to one another not only through press and radio and ships and jet-planes, but we must become closer through our hearts, through our mutual understanding, esteem, and love». In short, everything is based on man! “Religion”, with him, had no longer a place. It is the “cult of man” that must breed the love of man. It is Freemason-talk all along, just as on September 1, 1963, as we reported above; words that suit perfectly that association with the ideas of the Masonic French Revolution. But that’s not how things stand! The “principles” of 1789 are not at all the principles of the Gospel! Only by respecting the “Rights of God” shall man have respect for the “Rights of man”, too, for only by making of Charity, Christian renunciation, and self-oblivion one’s own life, shall man be able to put into practice the Law of Christ: “BUT SEEK YE FIRST THE KINGDOM OF GOD, AND HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS; AND ALL THESE THINGS SHALL BE ADDED UNTO YOU14.

12 Allocution of November 7, 1975.

13 Pius X “Letter on the Sillon”, of August 25, 1910, n. 25.

14 Matthew 6, 33.

Perhaps, that evangelical text never occurred to Paul VI, in which Christ says clearly, “but seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness”, that is, the life of Grace and Sanctity, in order to gain access to the Beatitude of the Glory of Heaven, and that, therefore, no progress is at all possible, not even of a human and temporal nature, but insofar as man sought first the “Kingdom of God”. Hence all of Paul VI’s words, were but a “chimera” of a “New World”, of a Paradise on earth, possible through the exclusive forces of man. On July 19, 1971, in fact, he said: «Something great and new is in the works and it is coming about, which might change the face of the earth». These are words of a hazy and whimsical Messianism, which had caused him to utter, at the UN, those other ludicrous and fanciful remarks: «Citizens of the world, as you salute the dawn of this new year, 1970, take a moment to think: whither is mankind’s path leading? Today we can take an overall view, a prophetic view. Mankind is traveling forward, that is, progressing toward an ever-greater mastery of the world… And how does this mastery help mankind? It helps it to live a better and fuller life. Mankind seeks fullness of life and obtains it… It strives for that unity, justice, balance and perfection, which we call Peace… Peace is the logical aim of the present world; it is the destiny of progress; it is the ultimate order the great strivings of civilization are headed for… We proclaim Peace as the dominant idea in the conscious life of man, who wants to see the prospect of his immediate and more distant journey. Once more we proclaim Peace, for Peace is, at one and the same time, under different aspects, both the beginning and the end of the development of society»15.

The ludicrous and hallucinating utterances of a false prophet! The Word of God, besides, clearly refutes his assertions. “Non est pax impiis”16.

Only Christ can give “peace”, but not in the same manner as worldly peace. It is appropriate to report once more what St. Pius X wrote in his “Letter on the Sillon”: «No, Venerable Brethren… The city of the world shall not be built otherwise than as God has built it; society shall not be setup unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants. OMNIA INSTAURARE IN CHRISTO»17.

“Peace”, therefore, can neither be a fruit of man’s civilization, nor can it be of the United Nations. And the same must be said of “Justice”. And yet Paul VI, even here, on October 4, 1965, had this to say to the Conciliar Fathers: «We all, convinced that peace has to be founded upon justice, shall become the advocates of justice. Christ wants us to be hungry and thirsty».

15 Peace Day Message, 1970.

16 Isaiah 48, 22 – 57, 21.

17 Pius X “Letter on the Sillon”, of August 25, 1910, n. 11.

In reality, however, Jesus spoke of another “justice”, that of man toward God, “Sanctity”, that is, whereas social justice can be but a consequence of the other. But Paul VI’s mind is that of a revolutionary Messianism: to subordinate the prospect of peace to the establishment of justice. And that he wrote in his “Populorum Progressio” of March 26, 1967, in which his analysis has a flavor of Marxism, since the word “Justice” pairs up with the word “Equality”; namely: the rich divide their resources with the deprived, or there would be war (as if it were not just the opposite, since the rich and strong always cause wars just to push the poor in deeper and deeper into poverty and therefore powerless). However, the “Populorum Progressio” as it is written, excited the resentments of the Third World populations, offering them “development” as an objective (but through their own efforts), as a result, pressured the rich to share their goods. “Development”, that is, is tantamount to “Peace”. Precisely the program, in fact, of Communism. And that is why Paul VI, at Bogotà, at Manila, in Australia, stirred the poor against the rich, indigenous peoples against Westerners; a dialectical masquerade of “class struggle”, softened with the recommendation of an evangelical solution, which repudiates violence and calls for love: «That in the past, the Church and the Popes themselves, in other very different circumstances, resorted to arms and temporal power, even for good causes and with the best of intentions, we are not here to judge, now; to us it is no longer the time to turn to the sword and to force, even when these were to be sustained by aims of justice and progress; and we are confident that all good Catholics and all sound and modern public opinion share our view. We are convinced, rather, that the time is ripe for Christian love among men; love must operate, love must change the face of the earth; love must bring justice, progress, brotherhood and peace into the world».

A way of speaking which is also “Utopia”, perhaps the most unrealizable in a world without God, in a civilization of sin. Hence Paul VI’s reckoning is, indirectly, an authentic justification of violence; a not so veiled authorization to “revolutionary insurrection”, which would be «The case of longstanding tyranny which would cause great damage to fundamental human rights and harm to the common good of the country…»18.

In conclusion, Paul VI’s program was: «To reduce iniquities, eliminate discrimination, free men from the bonds of servitude, and thus give them the capacity, in the sphere of temporal realities, to improve their lot, to further their moral growth and to develop their spiritual endowments»19.

It is a program, however, of Masonic philanthropy, of integral Socialism, to be realized through force. St. Pius X would say, as he did of the Sillon: «Socialism will be ushered in, with its eyes fixed on a chimera»20.

Now, that is not the “design of God”, but diverting of the eyes of the Faithful from Heaven in order to turn them into “slaves of the World”, as it is read in the Apocalypse. Paul VI’s “Populorum Progressio“, therefore, save for the idyllic calls to love, in order to reach it, calls for the fusion of religions, the heaping up of them into a chaotic confusion. In fact, what place would occupy religion in that planned “city of man”? In other words, what place would be due to religion in that new humanism proclaiming continuously that man is sufficient unto himself, hence he can do without transcendence, revelation, supernatural redemption, dogma, worship, singular Church? But was it not, on the contrary, exactly this that all of the popes prior to Paul VI condemned? He, on the contrary, at Sydney, on December 13, 1970, will say: «Isolation is no longer an option. The hour has come for the great fellowship of men with each other, and for the setting up of a United and Fraternal World Community» and «The work of peace is not limited to one religious faith; it is the work and duty of every man, regardless of his religious convictions. Men are brothers, God is their Father and their Father wants them to live in peace with on one anothers»21.

But then it is God calling for tolerance, indifference, liberalism, and respect of every religion! If that is the case, God would also want His own discredit, willing that «a human community be built where men can live truly human lives, free from discrimination on account of race, religion or nationality…»22, hence «any discrimination, be it of an ethical, cultural, religious or political nature, is unjustified and inadmissible»23. But that would lead to the conclusion that if religion serves no purpose in this new world society, then neither would God. And that is the Masonic thought, as well as Maritain’s: «Integral Humanism can but find its ideological foundations in a profane tradition of the Gospel…». But Paul VI, too, in his address of January 30, 1965, would say: «The Church cannot turn a blind eye onto the ideological, moral and spiritual animation of public life… Work with faith, yes, with confidence toward the systems that form the norm and history of our society, and which today are the democratic ones». And in his address of September 14, 1965: «We feel responsible. We are indebted to everyone. The Church, in this world, is not an aim in itself; She is at the service of mankind; She must make Christ present to all, individuals and peoples». But what “presence of Christ”? That of the lackey? «To serve mankind, of every condition, in every weakness and need. The Church has, so to say, proclaimed Herself the servant of humanity»24. And he adds: «While other currents of thought and action propose to build the city of man, different principles such as power, wealth, science, struggle, interest, etcetera, the Church, the Church alone, proclaims love»25. Paul VI, therefore, wanted to fortify that “new city”, ideal and secular, with that “supplement of faith and love” which the UN requires. But that means that, by osmosis, they will change into one, in man and in love for the world. And that in order to ensure the success of the project of the man who makes himself God. Hence “The religion of the God who became man”, should thus place itself at the service of the “the religion of man who makes himself God”!

18 Paul VI, “Populorum Progressio”, n. 31.

19 Ibid. n. 34.

20 Pius X “Letter on the Sillon”, of August 25, 1910, n. 38

21 To the religious organizations of the UN, on October 14, 1965.

22 Paul VI, “Populorum Progressio”, n. 47.

23 Oct. Adv. 23 and 16.

24 Address of December 7, 1965.

25 Address of December 14, 1965.

How could this Pope, who even at Bethlehem, on January 16, 1964, had said: «We must ensure to the life of the Church a new way of feeling, of willing, of behaving», go on to speak and act as he pleased? And who on August 12, had said: «Religion must be renovated. That is the persuasion of all those who, today, are still (sic) dealing with religion, whether they be outside of its concrete expression: a faith, an observance, a community, or be within a religious profession or discussion. It all depends on what one intends for renovation». It is a speech that might have hinted to a lost faith even on his part, his belonging amongst “those who are still dealing with religion” notwithstanding, so that all religions could fraternize in the temporal action, brushing aside dogmatic conflicts, since “religious struggles are forever gone”26, since it is no longer the case to interest the souls in “supreme things”27, but to put them at the service of humanity. And that is Paul VI’s Ecumenism! Confusion, that is, all religions into converging expressions of the same “spiritual and moral values” offered to the “men of goodwill” on Earth. And all that Masonic ecumenism, unfortunately, was the canvas of his journey to the East, where he even made of Buddhism a religion. But it was the “purpose” of his journey, that arousing «Fruits of a closer understanding between communities of every origin and every religious confession in this part of the world; we do hope, moreover, that (our journey) would foster a concurrent action toward progress, justice, and peace»28.

And at Ceylon, on December 4, 1970: «Regardless of caste, FAITH, color and language». Coexistence and collaboration, that is, between all religions. Paul VI would repeat it in his Address at the Angelus of August 9, 1970: «The conflict engages three ethnic-religious expressions, which recognize one sole true God: the Hebrew people, the Islamic people, and, with these and spread worldwide, the Christian people, that is, monotheism, identical monotheism, in its three most authentic, most ancient, most historical, most convinced voices. Would it not be possible that from the name of the very same God, instead of irreducible oppositions, sprang forth a sentiment of mutual respect, of possible agreement, of peaceful cohabitation? Could not the reference to the same God, to the same Father, without the prejudice of theological dispute, one day lead to the discovery, so difficult and indispensable, that we are all brothers? (…). Dreadful and at one time disheartening are the boldness and lightness of spirit of men who declare themselves Catholics, who dream of establishing on the earth, outside of the Catholic Church, “the kingdom of justice and love”, with workers from everywhere, of every religion and without religion, with or without faith, so long as they forget what divides them; their religious and philosophical convictions, and so long as they share what unites them: a generous idealism and moral forces, gathered “wherever is possible”». Bewildering indeed! The result of that promiscuity in work, the beneficiary of that cosmopolitan social action, can be but a “democracy” which would be neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish: a religion more universal than the Catholic Church, including all men, becoming, at last, brothers and comrades in the “Kingdom of God” (in the “kingdom of justice and love”?). Paul VI, here, gave the halt to working for the true “Kingdom of God”, in order to work, instead, for humanity. And that was also his appeal to the “Red Guards” of the [Chinese] Cultural Revolution, as was his letter to Cardinal Roy: «The Church invites every Christian to a double task of animation and renovation in order to evolve Her structures and adapt them to the requirements of our times… The Spirit of the Lord, animating man renewed in Christ, shakes the horizons in which his [man’s] intelligence is keen on finding his self-assurance and the limits in which his action would be circumscribed; he is seized by a force that pushes him to fly past every system and every ideology»29. Religion seems condemned in favor of a chimerical Constitution of a “New World”, in which dogmas become obstacles to universal understanding and hurdles to brotherhood; in which the Sacraments no longer serve any purpose, as men are all equal even without drawing from them, in which even the Commandments of God are rejected as unbearable constraints.

Paul VI, at the UN, talking to the representatives of 117 countries. From the TV, millions of people understood his “Message”. It was a unique opportunity to preach Jesus Christ to the world, but Pope Paul VI, however, preached “faith in man”!

In conclusion, with that “Project-Utopia” of Paul VI’s, the Institution of the Church would crumble to the ground, for the reason that, separated from Her way of thinking, educating, and living, She would prevent the Christians from integrating into the world, into the secular community. Integral Humanism advocated by Paul VI would come to definitively suffocate Religion, and become atheist “Humanism”. And while Pius X was canonized for the purity of his doctrine and for his fortitude in defending the Catholic Faith, today they would be willing to bring to the altar a Paul VI whom, with his “Political Utopia”, already expressly condemned by his Predecessors, attempted to corrupt the Faith of the Church of Christ.

26 I.C.I., February 15, 1965.

27 Address of December 7, 1965.

28 Address at Téhéran, on November 26, 1970.

29 Oct. Adv. 50 and 37.

THE MASONIC “UNIVERSAL DEMOCRACY”

– «To carry out a revolution, the democratic alternative is the most desirable and most permanent method; a purely totalitarian method, in the long run, self-destructive». (Julian Huxley, “Time of Revolution”, Mondadori, 1949, p. 16).

– «The world is ruled by quite different characters than one could not even imagine, whose eyes cannot see behind the scenes». (Benjamin Disraeli, British Prime Minister).

– «Member States (…) are no longer arbiters of their own destiny. Powers that elude us are engaging in (…) countries of special interests and aberrant idealism». (Sir Stanley Baldwin, British minister).

«The error that you do not oppose; you support». (Pope St. Felix III)

CHAPTER VI

HIS “TOLERANCE AND COMPLICITY”

No one can deny, today, that the famous “revision” of Vatican II had been an authentic “betrayal”. It is no use attempting to explain and justify this state of things. After trying, for many years, to pretend that all is well, and that all the Church was suffering from was a healthy “crisis of growth”, and, in the end, all would conclude in a beautiful blossoming [in the Church], it has now been recognized as an insupportable thesis. However they would have one believe that all of the current “evil” can neither be attributed to the Pope nor to Vatican II, but only to the disobedience of the [Catholic] faithful not willing to adapt to what the Council would have wanted.

Certainly, one cannot lay all the blame for such a disaster upon Paul VI alone, even though he, himself, spoke of “self-destruction” afoot in the Church; in any case, he surely deserves the “lion’s share” in the current decline of the Church. Therefore, to only accuse the Pope and the Council of disobedience after this visible subverting of doctrine, morals, and ecclesiology, with the unhealthy “revisions” that led to an evident destruction of the traditional values of the Church of Tradition, would be a sign of intellectual shortsightedness or dishonesty. The “facts” and the “texts” are still there for all to see. They are therefore the products of the Hierarchy of the Church. Undeniably! With the wiping out of the Holy Office, and its restrictions, which had raised dams of protection against the waves of error and evil, for the protection of souls, permission was granted for the invasion and submersion of the Church into the tidal waves of error and immorality. Now, how could Paul VI call for or accept decisions so lacking even in common sense?

Regrettably, to his own eyes, “human dignity” required that all that might resemble offense to man’s “freedom” be suppressed, as if today’s man no longer carried “original sin” and, therefore, no longer carried any inclination to sin, as if man were endowed with a perfect judgment and a universal knowledge of all.

How Paul VI, who let every heresy go free without ever intervening against the theoreticians or the propagators, could support the Catholic Faith, it is impossible to comprehend.

Sure, Paul VI undersigned the encyclicals “Mysterium Fidei” (September 3, 1965), “Sacerdotalis Caelibatus” (June 24, 1967), “Humanae Vitae” (July 25, 1968), which are a faithful echo of the Catholic Tradition; as he also had to suffer for the systematic criticism that came about, from some of his Acts of Magisterium, on the part of many priests and whole Episcopates. In any case, his affirming the “Truth” without ever condemning the errors remains incomprehensible. We can similarly express our wonderment for his traditional doctrine in his Wednesday “Allocutions” (save for some exceptions), while he even allowed to be taught an avalanche of crazy theories along with dogmatic and moral nonsense in the churches. It was, therefore, an inexplicable tolerance, allowing so many errors that Paul VI seemed to reject to spread, at all levels. He allowed them to flourish about him all of the time, though these same teachings poisoned souls. In so acting, his negligence was similar to that which earned Pope Honorius the condemnation of the anathema. Nay, Paul VI went further, he went as far as favoring the advocates of errors and novelties harmful to the doctrine of our Faith. In fact, he even defended them and praised them, and many of them he summoned to high offices, as if he banded together with them in the common cause of a “Conciliar Reform” toward the creation of a “New Church”. Negligent, inert, and complicit… and friends of Atheists and Communists, all of this on account of a yearning for “dialogue” that allowed him to create peace with the Protestants, avoiding to recall the “ancient condemnations” and to repress, with “new condemnations”, the protestantization that was afoot in the Church. Thus he started and carried forward the demolition of any protection defending the Church against “errors”.

In fact: On December 7, 1965, he suppressed the Congregation of the Holy Office, and not only changed its name into “Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith”, but also changed, what is most important, its regulations1, so that errors could no longer be condemned in the way it was done before. «Perfect love wipes away fears…

The progress of human culture, whose import for religion must not be neglected, requires that the faithful follow more fully and with additional love the directives, if they can well discern the raison d’être of the definitions and of the laws…». It is a text suggesting, to be sure, to the faithful, to follow the directives of the Church, but only “if they can well discern the raison d’être of the definitions and of the laws”, or else… they would not be bound to obey when those definitions and laws did not concur with their own judgments. A text, all in all, which introduced, even in the Catholic Church, the “free thought” of Protestantism. Then, as a logical consequence of that change of the Holy Office, Paul VI proceeded to suppress the Index (of Forbidden Books), namely, the catalogue of the books the Holy See prohibited the faithful to read, since She considered them bad or harmful to their Faith. «The main reason that has urged the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (to cut short the reprinting of the Index) – said Cardinal Ottaviani – is that it no longer responds to the needs… In the “Declaration On Religious Freedom”, in the “Decree On the Apostolate of The Laity” and in the Constitutions on “The Church in the Modern World”, the Council has bestowed to the laity a greater maturity and higher responsibilities in the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ»2. An odd act, to say the least, as it seems as if Paul VI had the power to bestow upon the faithful a spiritual and intellectual “maturity” capable of replacing the Magisterium of the Church. For this reason, Cardinal Ottaviani had to explain that «In the climate of the Council, the Church will formulate some authorized indications, some alerts, some advises, some warnings, rather than condemnations…»3. However, it seemed to say that the diffusion of bad books, of false and erroneous doctrines, would no longer have anything to do with the Magisterium. In that way, by abolishing the Index and its sanctions, Paul VI favored the spreading of error, turning himself into a downright accomplice. «The Index no longer carries the force of ecclesiastical law with the censures associated with it. The Church has confidence in the mature conscience of the faithful (!!)»4. Ingenuousness! Here, instead, is the result of that ecclesial “thoughtlessness”: today, one reads anything, completely unchecked. And the moral decline, the confusion of religious ideas, before so many different religions and theories, is before everyone’s eyes. And then, where is the vigilance (It is beyond incompetence!) of many Ordinaries and of the Episcopal Conferences, which still have the duty of standing watch? And how to explain that, months after the abolition of the Index, two articles of the “Canon Law” were also abolished, dealing with the condemnation of bad books and with the imposition of sanctions upon their authors? In fact, on November 15, 1966, it was again Paul VI who declared abrogated Canon 1399 on the prohibition of books, and Canon 2318 on ecclesiastical censures, imposed upon the authors and apologists of immoral books and upon the supporters of false doctrines. And he did it through a Decree, which reads: «Those who, possibly, were bound by censures, as provided for in Canon 2318, containing punishments against those in violation of the laws on the censures and interdiction of books, are absolved by effect of the abrogation of the said Canon»5. Hence, even the authors whom, in the past, had been condemned by the Holy Office for their scandalous or heretical works, today, with the “New Church” of Paul VI, are “absolved”, without asking of them neither repentance nor a retraction of their errors. This leads one to conclude that, to Paul VI, that which under his Predecessors was considered “erroneous” or “hazardous” for the Christian souls, under his Pontificate was no longer such. Therefore, by absolving the heretical or immoral authors and non-convert distributors of bad books, Paul VI signed the approval of the error and granted it citizenship rights in the Church.

1 Motu proprio “Integrae Servandae”

2 Statement published on “L’Osservatore della Domenica” of April 24, 1996.

3 Idem.

4 “Notification of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith”, in “L’Osservatore Romano” of June 15, 1966.

5 Decree of the “Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith”, of November 15, 1996; “Acta Apostolicae Sedis”, December 29, 1966, vol. 58, n. 16.

Another “green light” of Paul VI’s was that of the abolition of the “anti-Modernist Oath” that St. Pius X had ordered the clergy to take in order to preclude them from the doctrinal errors of Modernism. Besides, he had also prescribed a “Profession of Faith”, of the Council of Trent, already prescribed by Pius IV. Now, Paul VI abrogated these two provisions of Pius X’s as well, and replaced them with a brief accommodating and flexible formula.

To Paul VI, that “anti-Modernist Oath” must have been acting against the “freedom” of the clergy, as it kept the clergy from thinking and believing differently, and that was against Vatican II. In fact, Vatican II had decreed that: «Each one, within the Church… will retain the freedom one deems worthy… even with respect to the theological elaboration of the revealed truth»6. (?!) Bewildering indeed! But Paul VI, too, had wanted Vatican II to be only “pastoral”, hence he removed the “solemn pastoral formulas that are called dogmatic” from it7. And that, no doubt, was so as not to upset a modern man no longer fond of the role of “pupil”, and not to upset the sensibility of the “separated brothers”. In fact, in the same opening address, Paul VI said: «To our Faith, which we hold as divine, we owe the frankest and firmest adhesion. But we are convinced that She is not an obstacle to the desired understanding between our separated Brothers and us, precisely because She is truth of the Lord and She is, therefore, a principle of unity and not of divergence or separation. In any case, we do not wish to make of our faith a motive of polemic with them»8. (?!)

Now, how could Paul VI say that integral Christian Faith could not be an obstacle to those who accept it fully, whereas it would be so to those who accept it only in part? Has Our Lord not said, perhaps: «For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law”9. So, only the “Truth” of the Lord is the principle of unity, and that only among those who accept it. And yet Paul VI, so as not to create “a reason for controversy”, abstained from his teaching authority, even though it was his very serious duty.

But he had already written it in his first Encyclical, “Ecclesiam Suam“: «… Nor do we propose to make this encyclical a solemn proclamation of Catholic doctrine or of moral or social principles. Our purpose is merely to send you a sincere message, as between brothers and members of a common family»10.

6 Conciliar “Decree” on Ecumenism: “Unitatis Redintegratio”, November 21, 1964, n. 4.

7 Opening address, II Session, September 29, 1963 – Conciliar Documents, n. 6 p. 109.

8 As above, p. 117.

9 Luke 12, 52 and 53.

10 “Ecclesiam Suam”, n. 7.

But what value could an encyclical have, then, that did not contain “specific teachings”? Not a serious affair! However, given the content of that encyclical, one can rejoice today that it did not have “a solemn and peculiarly doctrinal character”, but a merely “colloquial” one. «The Church must enter into dialogue with the world in which it lives (?!) – It reads – We are fully aware that it is the intention of the Council to consider and investigate this special and important aspect of the Church’s life»11. Words that sound as a departure to the “command” of Jesus Christ, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations”12, and to His imperative, “docete”. Paul VI has thus cancelled the “docete” and turned it into a “dialogue”, that is, a mere “listening” exercise. Hardly an act of “courage”, I should say, that canceling from the Gospel Christ’s imperative “docete”, an act I would rather define as an authentic betrayal of the Faith. Incredible, but true! Neither the supreme Hierarchy, nor the scholars of theology have ever stressed that inversion (forced upon, besides) between “docete” and “discuss”. Neither did I hear a condemnation, with regard to Paul VI’s “Credo”, of what he had written in his introduction, in which he sets out with the following quaint (Modernistically clear, though) “fine-tuning”: «We are about to make a profession of faith, and we are about to repeat the formula that begins with the word “Credo”, which, without being a dogmatic definition in the strict sense of the word…»13.

Astonishing! But “why”? Perhaps out of respect for individual “freedom of thought”? But then, what was stirring in Paul VI’s mind that urged him to point out that even the articles of faith, enumerated in the “Creed” are not a dogmatic definition? But even with his appeal (of October 11, 1962), in “Mysterium Fidei“, he wanted a new language with new formulas to be sought out, in order to render the Catholic Faith more accessible and credible to modern man. A feat he himself was never able to accomplish. In any case, with the excuse of a “revision”, even doctrinal, he opened up the doors to all kinds of heresies, granting the greatest freedom and real immunity to Christians, as well as complete autonomy to scholars and theologians14. It was then that he abrogated all of the instruments and institutions to control doctrine. And that marked the end of Authority. It was end of the Norm; Licentiousness now ruled. But it was also in this manner that Paul VI became united with the heretics, having become an accomplice and Protector for them, for the reason that he imposed this “new direction” in his “new Church”, with a Magisterium wrongfully proposed as “Ordinary”. In June of 1969, he had already announced: «We are headed toward a period of greater freedom in the life of the Church, and, consequently, for each of Her children. This freedom shall mean less legal obligations and less inner inhibitions. Formal discipline shall be softened, every arbitrariness abolished… Every intolerance and every absolutism shall similarly be abolished»15. Lamentably, Paul VI put that anarchical form directly into practice; only that, instead of “abolishing every arbitrariness of it”, he turned it into a norm.

11 N. 67-68.

12 Matthew 28, 19.

13 Paul VI’s “Profession of Faith”, June 30, 1968.

14 Address at St. Thomas University, Manila.

15 “General Audience” of June 9, 1969.

Having made it his duty to become the Pope of the “apertura” [opening], of the “universal welcome”, he kept at it, indeed, without delay, but only with the representatives of “error” and “vice”, as, for example, with the Communist leaders, fierce persecutors, soiled with the blood of the Christian Martyrs, offering them the warmest hospitality, even though, as soon as the visit was over, they would resume the torturing and slaughtering of the faithful children of the Church. The simpletons had seen, in those gestures of Paul VI’s, a luminous sign of charity, whereas, on the contrary, we dispute it precisely on the very level of that very virtue.

We say: Why did Paul VI use that “opening” and such tolerance with those who were distant from the Church, while he always made an exception when it came to the “Traditionalists”? Was the Traditional Faith such an awful “crime”, in his eyes, that he denied them even a brief “visit”, while to the representatives of every religion, actresses, sportsmen, revolutionaries… he granted every possibility of encounter and conference with him?

For example: On June 29, 1970, several hundred Catholic Traditionalists traveled to Rome, from all parts of the world, in a pilgrimage, requesting also an “audience” with the Pope. They waited for hours and hours, in prayer, at St. Peter’s square. To no avail! The audience was not granted, nay, it was “denied”. In the same week, however, Paul VI received, with open arms, the revolutionary leader of the anti-Portuguese rebellion. Even the press reacted. The “Osservatore Romano” (July 4, 1970) tried to explain that Paul VI’s gesture should not be regarded as wrong, for “the Pope, – wrote the Vatican newspaper – as his mission demands, receives all those requesting the comfort of a blessing”. As one can see, it was a declaration of hypocrisy, which bordered on ridicule. The Pope received everybody? And the Traditionalists?

Another case: on May 30, 1971, another pilgrimage to Rome of “Traditionalists” from all over the world. Another entreaty to obtain an audience. Another stark refusal. And yet, at that same time, Paul VI received, in special audience, two soccer teams, and, to follow, the American Jewish Masonic Association of the “B’nai B’rith”.

Paul VI himself apologized; saying that he received the former, as he was much into sports himself, “soccer, in particular, even when it ends up in a brawl”. And that he was also interested in the French-Masonic Association of the B’nai-B’rith, since it had toiled much, during the Council, to ensure the triumph of the thesis of the Jewish Jules Isaac, whom, however, had dared to affirm, “Your Evangelists are downright liars!” and again, “Your Fathers of the Church are forgers, are iniquitous”16. “Facts” and “remarks” that call for contemplation.

16 “Journal L’Aurore” of June 3, 1971.

One more example: In June of 1973, while he again refused to receive the representatives of 4,000 Catholic Traditionalists, from all over the world, Paul VI received, in special audience, a group of Talmudic Rabbis and the Patriarch of Buddhist Monks. And so forth and so on. Freemasons, Communists, enemies of the Church, were all and always received by Paul VI, with open arms, while he always kept the Traditionalists, implacably, at the door. And while Paul VI received Bishops and priests who supported Communism, who gave their blessing to immoral books, or [works] erroneous in the Faith, because he was respectful of their “freedoms”, with Cardinal Mindszenty, martyr of Communist folly and criminality, he sacrificed him onto the altar of his unspeakable “Ostpolitik”, to the point of reducing him to the status of a “suspended a divinis”! It is thus clear that Paul VI always had double standards. To achieve his “dream” of a great universal tolerance, he intended to eliminate all the “intolerant”, that is, all those who were not prepared to compromise with error or to sugar coat their Faith so as not to upset the enemies of Christ and of His Gospel. But that was and still is the ideal and “plan” of Freemasonry, too: to eliminate, that is, all that “divides”, such as the dogmas, mainstay of a sole “truth”, the holy intransigence that gave the Church millions of Martyrs”. And it was for that very same “plan” Paul VI continued to fight, arrogant and blind, in order to achieve his illusory “Utopia” of a “Universal Humanism”.

And the “evidence” of his Utopia is indeed in all the “facts” that have taken place during his Pontificate: on the one hand, the friendship with dissidents, heretics, rebels, atheists and the mundane, and opening to all religions; on the other, his constant hostility and inflexibility with the defenders of the Catholic Faith. An opening, his opening, characteristic of a “Masonic Ecumenism”, one that calls to mind his true masters: Lamennais, with his “Messianism”; Saugnier, with his “Christian Democracy”; Jacques Maritain, with his “Integral Humanism”.

That is to say:

– Humanity, in lieu of the Church and Christianity;

– The “Charter of Man’s Rights” as a “New Gospel”, with its trilogy: Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.

– World Democracy, or an earthly version of the “Kingdom of God”, and a “Religion” inclusive of every denomination, and as inspirer of a renewed Humanity.

Hence: Humanity in lieu of the Church!

But Pope Leo XIII, on the contrary, in his encyclical “Humanum Genus” (April 20, 1884) had written: «The race of man (…) is separated into two diverse and opposite parts, of which the one steadfastly contends for truth and virtue, the other of those things which are contrary to virtue and to truth. The one is (…) the true Church of Jesus Christ (…) The other is the kingdom of Satan». But Paul VI had ignored that ever since his “Ecclesiam Suam”, in which in practice he rejected the dominion of the Church upon the temporal society (“Christianity”), to recognize only a “profane World” as a universal social body, autonomous, external to the Church. It is for this reason that, in his encyclical, Paul VI omitted the two “passages” of St. Paul to the Corinthians: “And what concord hath Christ with Belial? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?”17.

And on that line of his, Paul VI, at Bombay, on Dec. 3, 1964, said: «Man must meet man, nation meet nation, as brothers and sisters, as children of God. In this mutual understanding and friendship, in this sacred communion (sic), we must also begin to work together to build the common future of the human race… Such a union cannot be built on a universal terror or fear of mutual destruction; it must be built on the common love that embraces all and has its roots in God, who is love». It was his “new Humanistic Creed”. He would reiterate it in his “Address” to the FAO, on November 6, 1970: «Man turns to man as he recognizes him as his own brother, as the son of the same Father». And since all men, deep down, are good, he, Paul VI, “expert in humanism”18, again said: «Yes, peace is possible, for men, deep down, are good, they lean toward reason, toward order and common good; peace is possible for in the heart of the new men, of the young, of those who understand the march of civilization…»19. «Democracy, which human communal living today appeals to, must open up to a universal idea that transcends the limits and the hurdles to an effective brotherhood»20.

And in one of his addresses, on January 1, 1970, he would repeat: «You, the people, have the right to be heard. But you have the sacred and legitimate right to demand of your leaders that they run the body politic in a manner that would cause you no sufferings… Well, then, we are the democracy (!!) … This means that people are in charge, that power comes from the number (?!), from the people, such as it is. If we are conscious of such a social progress that is spreading everywhere, we must give democracy this voice, this password: the people do not want the war. The masses must impose the principle that there must be no more wars in the world». Thus God must no longer punish “sins”. Thus even if the word of God is the “Non est pax impiis”21, it must no longer carry any significance. Thus the supernatural virtues, the Grace of the Sacraments, the obedience to God’s Commandments no longer carry a weight in society, over this fancied “Universal Democracy” which ignores not only “original sin”, but commits countless sins at all times, continuously arousing the “punishments of God”.

And yet Paul VI, though “Vicar of Christ”, has substituted the UN – that Masonic Tower of Babel– as supreme hope for humanity. That, he had recognized, already, and uttered, on October 4, 1969, at Manhattan, at the very heart of the UN: «The peoples of the earth turn to the United Nations as the last hope of concord and peace. We presume to present here, together with our own, their tribute to honor and of hope. You exist and operate to unite the Nations, to connect the States; let us use this second formula: to put together the ones with the others. You are an Association. You are a bridge between peoples… We would be tempted to say that your chief characteristic is a reflection, as it were, in the temporal field of what our Catholic Church aspires to be in the spiritual field: unique and universal. Among the ideals by which mankind is guided, one can conceive of nothing greater on the natural level… In this way a system of solidarity is established, so that lofty civilized aims may win the orderly and unanimous support of all the family of peoples for the common good and for the good of each individual. This is the finest aspect of the United Nations; it is its most truly human aspect; it is the ideal that mankind dreams of on its pilgrimage through time; it is the world’s greatest hope; it is, we presume to say, the reflection of the loving and transcendent design of God for the progress of the human family on earth, a reflection in which we see the heavenly message of the Gospel». It was a senseless talk that buried all of his dignity as “Vicar of Christ”. How could anyone dare praise that Masonic organization, whose aim is to attain the enslavement of the peoples, the annulment of national autonomies, the dissolution of national sovereignties? An organization pursuing dominance over the world and over the consciences, pursuing but a political dictatorship, an economic dictatorship, an ideological, ethical and moral dictatorship? Paul VI, on the contrary, saw it as the ultimate realization of the “design of God” on earth, as the ultimate hope for humanity. But was it not then his impiety saying that the UN is the political image of the Church, the earthly reflection of the Gospel, the real and universal expression of the design of God?

17 II Corinthians 6, 14-16.

18 1st Peace Day Address.

19 Address to the UN of October 4, 1965.

20 Christmas Message, 1964.

21 Isaiah 48, 22-57, 21.

THE MASONIC “TOLERANCE”

– “In the Grand Alliance Treaty signed in Lausanne in 1875, between the Supreme Ancient Council and Accepted Scottish Rite, the Convent approved the recognition of a superior force of which it proclaims the existence under the name of the Great Architect of the Universe. The immediate protests that rise from different countries … the convent, after reaffirming the existence of a creative principle, formulated immediately, this other principle: «Freemasonry does not impose any restriction on the free pursuit of truth, and to ensure that freedom to anyone that it expects all tolerance». (Salvatore Farina, The Book of Rituals of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, Rome Piccinelli, 1946, p. 304).

– Masonic religious tolerance, in fact, is intolerance, because: «The only true religion of Freemasonry is Gnosticism. All other religions, especially Catholicism, have taken from Freemasonry all that could be true. They [Freemasonry] do not have their own theories that are ridiculous or false». (“Freemasonry”, Florence 1945, p. 69).

– In 1900, an International Masonic Congress was held in Paris whose aim was to establish relationships between the different powers of the Masonic world. Soon after the annual convent met at the Grand Orient and the speaker [of the meeting] conveyed the reason: «The Vatican is the headquarters of an international evil, and a federation of all Masonic obedience is absolutely necessary in opposition [to it]». The Congress, then, also concerned itself with the “secular”. The Masonic Blatino churches spread Masonic education to the «secular masses, gradually leaving the religions of the past». The Freemason Cocq was more explicit: «It is religion itself that must be destroyed, that is the belief in superstition and the supernatural and dogma» (Applause). «Tolerance – he added – is a fundamental principle of our order, but tolerance does not mean inaction… religion itself must be destroyed». (E. Delassus, “Il problema dell’ora presente”, Desclèe e C. Tipografi-Editori 1907, vol. I, p. 37)

«Communism is intrinsically wrong, and no one who would save Christian civilization may collaborate with it in any undertaking whatsoever. Those who permit themselves to be deceived into lending their aid towards the triumph of Communism in their own country, will be the first to fall victims of their error. And the greater the antiquity and grandeur of the Christian civilization in the regions where Communism successfully penetrates, so much more devastating will be the hatred displayed by the godless». (Pius XI, “Divini Redemptoris” – 1937)

CHAPTER VII

HIS “OPENING TO COMMUNISM”

In Reinhard Raffalt’s book: “Where is the Vatican Headed?” with subtitle: “The Pope Between Religion and Politics”, the German author offers a slanted and yet precise judgment as to Paul VI’s action in this field. The chapter dedicated to the Vatican Ostpolitik is meaningfully titled: “Hamlet on the Holy See”. While it stresses the “mens” [mind] of Pius XII on Communism, who defines it as “a tragedy for humanity”, which has the consequences of “excommunication” for all Catholics professing their Communist faith, through his constant refusal of any contact with Communism, because it is “intrinsically aberrant”, the chapter goes on to show the path followed by the Church under Pius XII’s former collaborator, Monsignor Montini, the future Paul VI.

To Paul VI, that is, Communism represented a hope, for it realized (?!) a social justice higher than that realized by Capitalism. Did not the Gospel, perhaps, preach a justice on this earth, too? And so, would it not be possible to persuade the Communists to adopt the Christian ideal of communal life? Paul VI, therefore, countered Pius XII’s line with his pragmatic line: Communism, albeit atheistic, does not imply, for that reason, a basic inability to meet the social expectations contained in the Gospel. This was Monsignor Montini’s “contrasting” attitude toward Pius XII, convinced as he was of the necessity of contributing, primarily, to the improvement of the material living conditions of the entire humanity. Hence his “secret relations” with the Communist Party (PC), ever since he collaborated, or, better said, “betrayed” Pius XII. By now, that “betrayal” of Montini’s belongs to History. A true and authentic history! It was 1954, and illness and old age were already exacting their toll on Pius XII. There was Colonel Arnauld, of the French Deuxième Bureau, the Brigadier General for the Intelligence Service, and Pius XII’s “James Bond”. He was a career officer, then, but, above all, a man of strict morals and a practicing Catholic. At the end of the war, he left the British and resumed his post within the ranks of the French “Secret Services”. It was then, shortly after the armistice, that the “Quai d’Orsay” (French Foreign Ministry) entrusted him with a mission to Pope Pius XII, to ask him to expel from their dioceses twenty-two French bishops, whom Charles De Gaulle’s government held responsible of having favored Marshal Pétain’s regime. Having exposed to Pius XII the request of his government (received by the Pope “very coldly”), Pius XII asked him for he wanted to know “the personal judgment of the ambassador, of the Catholic, of the officer, whose sister is Mother Superior of a Convent in Rome”. The colonel bade for time in order to study the “dossier” of the twenty-two bishops. When he returned to Rome, he manifested his “judgment” on the case; Pius XII concurred with his judgment and had only two bishops removed from France, refusing to “punish the others”. Shortly after, Colonel Arnauld resigned from the Deuxième Bureau. Pius XII, having got wind of it, summoned him to Rome and asked him to become his personal agent, answering only to him, because –he said– “A diplomat must stick to some rules and be very prudent; unlike an agent”. The Colonel took on the offer, took an oath to the Pontiff and set out on his new mission.

During a tour in the East, he entered into a relationship with the Lutheran bishop of Uppsala, Primate of Sweden, whom, holding Pius XII in great esteem, did not hesitate to lend him precious services, such as helping out members of the Clergy, held in detention, and the stealthy introduction of Bibles into Russia, etc. In the course of one of these meetings (toward the summer of 1954), the Archbishop of Uppsala suddenly said to the colonel, “The Swedish authorities are perfectly aware of the Vatican’s relations with the Soviets”. The Colonel promptly decided to question Pius XII once he returned from his mission. Back in Italy, in fact, he questioned the Holy Father, whom, quite astounded by this statement, asked the Colonel to tell Monsignor Brilioth that the Vatican had no relations with the Soviets. But when Colonel Arnauld returned to Sweden, the Archbishop of Uppsala reiterated to him what he had said before, begging him to get back to him as soon as he completed his new mission. The Colonel accepted and went to see the Archbishop. Monsignor Brilioth, then, handed him a sealed envelope, addressed to Pius XII, begging him to place it directly into his hands, ensuring that no one else in the Vatican knew about it. All Monsignor Brilioth told the Colonel, was: «This envelope contains the “EVIDENCE” of the relations the Vatican entertains with the Soviets». Once in Rome, the Colonel handed the envelope over to Pius XII, who read it in his presence, as the color drained from his face.

In brief: the last official text signed by the Pro-Secretary of State, Monsignor Montini, bears the date of September 23, 19541. On November 1, 1954, Pius XII removed Monsignor Montini as the Secretary of State. From other information it was learned that, in that disastrous fall of 1954, Pius XII had also discovered that his pro-Secretary of State “had kept from him all communications relating to the schism of the Chinese Bishops”2, whose case was growing worse.

Now, the fact that Monsignor Montini had been removed as Secretary of State since he had fallen into disgrace with Pius XII (whom he “betrayed”), was also admitted by Jean Guitton in his book: “Paul VI Secret“, wherein he writes: «No one ever knew, nor will ever know why Pius XII, having made him Archbishop of Milan, had not made him a cardinal, which took away from him the possibility of becoming pope»3… And, further on, he writes: «He (Paul VI) goes through an experience similar to that which Pius XII had inflicted upon him: that of the “diffidentia”, as Pius XII seemed to have lost the confidence he had placed in him». Sure, Jean Guitton had no knowledge of the “betrayal” of his “friend”, that is, of that “Ostpolitik” which, as Colonel Arnauld said: «Montini had already a policy of his own, which was not that of the reigning Pope. That policy, today, is official, and goes by the name of “Vatican Ostpolitik”.

And so no reason exists anymore to keep these episodes, these facts now consigned to History, locked up in a drawer». And it is truly so! That is why we talk about it here, as well as for the reason that I could personally verify the “truth” of Pius XII’s heavy action toward his closest collaborator, through a personal “meeting” with General G. Leconte, of the French Secret Services. I was introduced to him by another agent of the “Secret Services”, Officer Masmay, whose guest I was, at his home, many times. Now, the General spoke to me, at first, of many things relating to the present day Church, as, for example, that the father of Cardinal Daniéleu was a Freemason of the Grand Orient, and that when he became Minister of National Education, it was he to impose the secularization of the schools. To my query if also Cardinal Daniéleu was a Freemason, he replied with this passage: “That same question –he said – I asked, on the phone, to a friend of mine, who, however, hung up on me with no response”. He then went on to inform me about many other high Prelates and some Jesuits, Freemasons; primarily, – of Freemason Cardinal Jean Villot4.

He told me that Villot’s parents were both Freemasons of the Rosicrucians. And he told me of an episode, recounted to him by the very Officer subject of the “fact”: when this [officer] learned that the Bishop of Lione, Villot, had to leave the Diocese to go to Rome, he paid him a visit, to wish him farewell and congratulate him on that invitation.

But Villot said to him: «Je suis envoyé à Rome pour devenir Pape». «And thus – remarked the General with a smile – rather than summoned, he was “sent” by the leaders of Freemasonry». The General, then, went on to disclose to me a “secret” he had learned from a High Officer of the Saudi Arabian espionage (an advisor to the King). He told me: «Cardinal Villot will not become pope, as he would pursue the opening to the left of the Vatican Ostpolitik, which is not at all palatable to the Arab anti-Communist world». After more confidences on persons of the Catholic Hierarchy and other Jesuits, he suddenly asked me this question: «Do you believe that Paul VI is a Freemason, too?». And without waiting for my answer, he handed me a book of Carlo Falconi: “Vue et Entendu au Concile“, [“Seen and Heard at the Council“] published before Montini became Pope, and showed me a “passage” of the book, on page 69, in which it is said that a big “33” of Freemasonry assured that even Montini “serait inscrit dans un Loge maçonnique” [“would be included in a Masonic Lodge”]. At last, he recounted to me the story of the removal of Monsignor Montini as Secretary of State by Pius XII, as he was really working for Russia, unbeknownst to the Pope, and, therefore, in betrayal of him. It is a fact that Montini, while Pius XII was still living, never set a foot in the Vatican again. To my last question: «But why, then, did Pius XII send Montini to Milan, such a prestigious Cardinal See, after Montini had betrayed him»? The General answered, smiling: «Nay! It wasn’t Pius XII to send him to Milan. We have here another “dossier”, under the heading “Cardinal Pizzardo”, containing documents that say otherwise. After all, it would not have escaped you that Pius XII never elevated him to the rank of Cardinal, although Milan were traditionally a Cardinal see, hence Montini found himself rejected from the Roman Curia and removed, for good, by that very Pope he had exerted not a little influence upon; and he was excluded by the future Conclave as Pius XII was determined to bar him from the Sacred College. Even his consecration to archbishop, after his nomination, was almost ignored by Pius XII». At that point, the General dialed a telephone number, calling Colonel Arnauld, advising him that I would be paying him a call directly. He rose from his armchair and kindly escorted me to the door, saying: «Now, Colonel Arnauld is expecting you, the Colonel who brought Pius XII the ‘evidence’ of Montini’s betrayal». Presently, in fact, I arrived at the Colonel’s house. He was ill and sitting in a wheelchair. His wife was with him. He made me sit opposite him, and, after exchanging the usual courtesies, he set out to tell me what I previously recounted, confirming, in 22 minutes, that Montini entertained obscure, covert relations, of his own initiative, with Russia and some other Eastern powers, hence Pius XII “expelled” him from office of the Secretary of State. He then told me that Pius XII was forced to accept that Montini be sent to Milan, but that he did not make him Cardinal, never granted him an audience (throughout the remaining four years of Pius XII’s life), and he repeatedly made it understood to the Cardinals that he would not have him as his successor. As one can see, these are not “State disclosures”, since everything I heard, with my own ears, on the Montini “case”, is still in the “French Archives”.

1 “Pontifical Documents”, 1954, p. 640.

2 CRC, 97, October 1975, p. 12.

3 “Pontifical Documents”, 1954, p. 407-417.

4 That Cardinal Villot were a “freemason” I had learned already from the officer of the French “Secret Service” Mr. Masmay, whose guest I had been. He told me, more than once, that Villot’s parents belonged to Freemasonry, and that his house was contiguous to “Villa Villot”, but that his parents had always forbidden him and his brothers to get in touch with the Villots, on account of their being “freemasons”.

Now, to continue, I would say that there was a sort of prehistory in the relationships Paul VI entertained with the Communist Party, ever since he was still Monsignor Montini. I quote, in this regard, a “document” from Washington’s National Archives, in which proof is provided of the future Pope Paul VI’s secret meetings with the Italian Communist Leader, Palmiro Togliatti, as far back as July of 19445. These were meetings and conversations that always took place unbeknownst to Pius XII, as he was deeply hostile to any contacts with the Marxists. We provide, here, along with the integral text of the original document, in English, the integral translation of that “document”, very compromising, of a meeting “Montini-Togliatti meeting”, which took place on July 10, 1944.

It is subdivided into five paragraphs:

1) On last July 10, at the house of a Christian Democratic minister, the Vatican pro-Secretary of State, Monsignor Giovanni Battista Montini, met with Togliatti, Communist minister without portfolio in the Bonomi Government. Their conversation focused on the grounds that bred the agreement between the Christian Democratic and the Communist parties.

2) Ever since his return to Italy, Togliatti had confidential meetings with eminent personalities of the Christian Democratic Party. These contacts represented the political backdrop of Togliatti’s address of Saturday, July 9, at the “Brancaccio” theater [in Rome], and the premise for the warm reception of the address on the part of the Catholic press.

3) Through the leaders of the Christian Democratic Party, Togliatti succeeded in conveying to the Vatican his impression, according to which Stalin’s view as to religious freedom is by now accepted by Communism, and the agreement between Russia and the allied Nations is marked by a democratic character. Concurrently, the Holy See reached Togliatti through the same intermediaries and made known its view as to the future agreement with Soviet Russia on the issue of Communism, both in Italy and in other Countries.

4) The discussion between Monsignor Montini and Togliatti is the first direct contact between a high Prelate of the Vatican and a Communist leader. Having reviewed the situation, they concurred upon the practical possibility of a contingent alliance between Catholics and Communists in Italy, which could win the three parties, Christian Democratic, Socialist and Communist, an absolute majority, sufficient to allow them to keep in check any political situation.

5) A “plan” has been drafted to build the platform of a possible agreement between the Christian Democratic Party and the Communist and Socialist Parties.

In practice, they would be following the fundamental lines along which an understanding may be created between the Holy See and Russia, within the framework of their fresh relations. It was the first “Historical Compromise”. [Ed. Note: Announced in late 1973 by the Italian Communist Party Secretary Enrico Berlinguer, it was the project of an historic alliance (worked out with Christian Democrat Aldo Moro, then murdered by the Red Brigades) with the Socialist and Christian Democrat parties that would allow the Communist Party access to government in a way that might be acceptable to United States]. But Togliatti pushed his contacts with the Holy See even farther, through Monsignor Montini, the most outspoken anti-Fascist in the Vatican, who made no secret of his sympathies toward Socialism. Another proof of this is that other very serious “accusation” against Montini, for his betrayal of the Homeland. And it remains to be explained why the fact that Monsignor Montini, besides betraying Pius XII (hence the Church, then governed by Pius XII), was also a “traitor of the Homeland”, is not taken into account. And yet it should come as no surprise that Monsignor Montini was “enlisted” by the “Secret Services” of the United States as a privileged “informer” of the Vatican, during the years of World War II. I transcribe here what the “Gazzettino” of June 1st 1996, wrote, under the title: “Montini was an American Spy”: «… To propose a collaboration with Pius XII’s most influential advisor, Secretary of State “in pectore”, was done, in early 1942, directly by William Donovan, creator of the OSS (Office of Strategic Services). Montini’s task was that of providing any useful “information” as to the movements of the Germans in Rome, and to gather the “voices” circulating in Benito Mussolini’s circles, as well as in Crown’s circles. The “revelations” are contained in some “documents”, unpublished, discovered in the Washington’s “National Archives” by the editors Ennio Caretto and Bruno Marolo, authors of the book: “Made in USA. The American Origins of the Italian Republic”». Another “betrayal” that does not certainly play into the hands of those pushing for his “beatification”: a Paul VI who “betrayed” Pius XII, and a Paul VI who “betrayed” his Homeland.

Now, to continue the discussion of the “secret meetings” between Togliatti and Montini, we note that Prelate a personal friend of the communist leader’s, namely Monsignor Giuseppe de Luca, arranged those contacts. But it would be Pope John XXIII –from whom Montini received his purple – to open even wider to Montini the path of the “dialogue” with the Communist world, after his famous encyclical “Pacem in Terris” of April 10, 1962, in which Communism, though not directly named, is however considered in full dialectical evolution, that is, no longer synonymous with Karl Marx’s doctrine, although retaining its principles6.

5 I would have you note that the “Historical Compromise” theory, expounded by [Italian Communist Party’s secretary] Berlinguer, features almost the identical words used by Togliatti [Italian Communist Party’s former secretary] and Montini (American magazine “Veritas” of April 1974)

6 That Encyclical had been preceded by the mentioned “private audience” of Krusciov’s son-in-law, Alexis Adjybei. It should be known that that audience ended with Pope John XXIII’s words, “Only opposite conceptions stand between us. It is not so big a deal!” (?!!).

Paul VI’s Pontificate would thus follow that path, cleared by John XXIII, who had commenced difficult negotiations with both the Patriarch of Moscow, and with that of Constantinople, Athenagoras. The aim was to ensure some “Observers” at the Council, planned for the fall of 1962. For that reason, J. Willebrands was sent to Moscow to negotiate with Archbishop Nicodemus. Along that Giovannean line, then, proceeded the entire Paul VI’s pontificate, always meeting the wishes of the Kremlin, anxious to secure “the possibility of inducing the Church of Rome to facilitate, through ecumenism, the acceptance of the Communist reality by the Catholic public opinion in the satellite Countries, and, in general, to guide the Vatican onto diplomatic positions convergent with those of the USSR in the field of disarmament and maintenance of a “Pax Sovietica”. Paul VI made a show of his spirit of reconciliation with the Communist world, for example, on the occasion of the “Episcopal Synod” of Rome, in the Fall of 1971. The theme was “Justice and Peace”. The Vatican had given instructions to impress on the Synod a strong anti-capitalist spin, in dealing with the injustices caused to the undeveloped Countries by the most technologically advanced nations.

But Archbishop Maxim Hermanioux, Metropolite of the Ukrainians, attending the works, had the courage to react, saying: «I find it highly surprising that, in the project and in the base account, one would deal with all the possible forms of injustice: political, cultural, economical and international, but not with the most deplorable to a Christian: the persecution of the Church of Christ»! Archbishop Hermanioux was speaking for the faithful of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, who remained in Russia, persecuted by the Communists, and certainly, he was alluding to the events of the previous years. In 1970, in fact, the Patriarch of Moscow, Pimen, had announced, during his investiture, that the Ukrainian Catholic Church “was no more”. And Cardinal Willebrands, Pontifical negotiator since 1962, official envoy of Paul VI, at the ceremony, had failed to react, neither on the spot, nor after his return to Rome. Paul VI, in this way, gave victory to atheist Moscow, persecutor of the Catholic faithful.

But in Rome Cardinal Joseph Slipyi (following 17 years of incarceration in Soviet concentration camps, and narrowly escaping execution), was already directing a large community of Ukrainian faithful who had emigrated to Canada, to the United Stated and above all to Australia. The Hierarchy of his Church, in June of 1971, approached Paul VI, on behalf of the entire community, requesting the nomination of the great archbishop to Patriarch (a dignity whose functions, in reality, Slipyi was already carrying out), but Paul VI, on July 7, rejected the request, which he considered “impossible, at least at this point and time”. Slipyi, then, convened a particular “Ukrainian Synod” (as it was, on the other hand, his prerogative). Paul VI, in vexation, had it promptly declared illegal. But the Ukrainians went on with it, and that action carried not a little consequence upon the works of the Council. Paul VI, however, never forgot it, and one year later he took his revenge. The Freemason Cardinal Villot, his Secretary of State, addressed a statement to the Ukrainian bishops informing them that: «The Ukrainian Church has no longer authority upon its Bishops outside of the Holy See». With that action, Paul VI stripped Cardinal Slipyi of any authority and his Church lost all its autonomy. And so the Soviets had been satisfied.

And in that way, perhaps, Paul VI believed – in this umpteenth illusion of his – to foster relations between the Vatican and the Kremlin. In any case, that was the style of his pragmatism, which he always practiced in his relationships with Moscow. As in regard to the appointments of the Bishops in Lithuania, he approved the Soviet choices, despite their perverted continuous political control. And when, in May of 1972, a Ukrainian student set himself ablaze, publicly, in protest against Moscow’s oppression toward the Church, the utter “silence” of the Vatican was more than eloquent, to anyone. But Paul VI would always put up with anything. Even when Moscow used a contemptuous demeanor with Archbishop Casaroli, on the occasion of the signature of the Treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Arms, at Moscow, Paul VI abstained from any reaction. Silence, always silence! Even in the face of the continuous persecutions against the Catholic faithful, who were being thrown into camps, tortured, shipped to Siberia, and murdered. One could hardly count the most distinct and obvious gestures in favor of the Soviets, on the part of Paul VI. He even removed his cardinals from their sees, precisely on account of their intransigence toward the local Governments, thus depriving them of any influence.

Consequently, on December 18, 1974, he “relieved” Cardinal Mindszenty, from his office of “Primate”. In vain Cardinal Mindszenty put up a resistance, in name of the “damage to religious life and the confusion such a measure would cause in the souls of the Catholics and clerics faithful to the Church”. Lamentably, Paul VI would have the upper hand with his “Ostpolitik” always kneeling before the criminal “reason of State” “Good of the State”. And so, on January 5, 1974, the Holy See publicized Paul VI’s decision, breaking the “news” of the removal of Cardinal Mindszenty from the Primatial Episcopal See of Esztergom. Mindszenty would note, in his “Memoirs”: «I begged him (Paul VI) to recede from that decision, but to no avail». A laconic hint to his inner drama, illuminating, however, his ultimate immolation on the Cross of Christ.

Unfortunately, on June 8, 1977, Paul VI even lowered himself to receive Janos Kadar. No Communist Party Secretary had ever crossed the threshold of a Pope’s private study. Sadly, the first overture would have taken place, outside the norm, between John XXIII and Agiubei. Kadar would be the second. He, the assassin in pectore, was the warden, of Cardinal Mindszenty, the great “Confessor” of the “Church of Silence”. That gesture of Paul VI’s, however, constituted a shame for his inhumane and scatterbrained Ostpolitik, which left hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Catholics in the camps and under torture, without a minimal solemn protest, public, before the world, in order to remain faithful to his pro-Soviet political line that would end up, however, disastrously, into a heap of rubble, stained in the blood of its “Martyrs”. Among these, stands out the great Cardinal Mindszenty, humiliated by Paul VI before the whole world, with his “deposition” from the office of “Primate of Hungary”. He who had never accepted the about-turn of a Church on Her knees before the world. He, the symbol and banner of an intrepid and irreducible Catholicism, who had never stooped before the persecutors of the “Church of Silence”, or to the “priests of the peace”, the new unworthy preachers of a Gospel in a sociological and Marxists key. GLORY TO YOU, CARDINAL MINDSZENTY, CONFESSOR AND MARTYR!

And yet, this Great Confessor of the Faith, laid to rest on May 15, 1975, in the Hungarian Chapel of St. Ladislao, at Mariazell (Austria), instead of an eulogy – as he deserved – saw then, not even a “Representative” of the “new” Hungarian Catholic Church, which never even sent a wreath and a word. The Apostolic Nuncio to Austria did not even attend. Only the “free world” – 4,000 Hungarians exiled throughout the world, 250 priests and about a hundred nuns – had convened before the tomb of that Apostle-Martyr of our times.

But by now, on the wave of Vatican II, the Holy See had taken the path of the “dialogue” even with the Communist criminal power, through compromises and collaboration. And thus any anti-Communist position was regarded as outdated and unrealistic; and, because of the utopia of a possible “normalization” of the ecclesiastical position with the Soviet States, the Church of Paul VI left our Martyrs of the Faith to their fate in exchange for an illusory freedom-on-parole7. Hence in that new climate of submission and treachery, the position of Cardinal Mindszenty had become embarrassing for their dull “dialogue” between Rome and Budapest. And for that reason Monsignor Casaroli had called on the Cardinal, proposing him a dishonorable proffer of “freedom” in exchange of his renunciation of his intransigence toward Communism. But the dignified figure of Mindszenty disdained that disgraceful “blackmail”, and rejoined that a “Reigning-Cardinal” could not abandon his flock. But Paul VI, in 1971, also urged by the Freemason Cardinal Köenig, sent in Monsignor Aàgon to bend the Cardinal, guaranteeing him freedom in the West, and the preservation of the title of “Primate of Hungary”, as well as the care of the Hungarian communities, exiled and emigrated. With that, however, Paul VI wanted him to hand over his office to a successor acceptable to the Budapest regime, leave Hungary without any statements, and, once in the West, abstain from any action that “could upset the relations between the Apostolic See and the Hungarian Government, or could cause any harm to the Government of the People’s Republic of Hungary”. As a last requirement, Cardinal Mindszenty would not publish his “Memoirs”, rather, he was to leave the legacy to the Vatican, which would then proceed as it saw fit8.

7 See, for the story of this tragedy, the book of the Jesuit Father Alessio U. Floridi: “Moscow and the Vatican”, “La Casa di Matriona” Editions, Milan 1976.

8 J. Mindszenty, “Memoirs”, Rusconi, Milan 1974, p. 356-357. – In the published text some pages are missing, the gravest, on account of Paul VI’s specific and reiterated will. I learned it, “apertis verbis”, from Cardinal Mindszenty in person, who, in my personal encounter with Him, at Vienna, on December 14, 1971, following two and half hours of passionate and enlightening conference, told me, “Believe me: Paul VI has delivered the Christian Nations into Communism’s hands“!

Cardinal Mindszenty, a worthy man in spite of it all, declined the offer, both because he did not intend to submit his actions and statements to the judgment of a criminal Marxist Government, and because his renunciation under those kinds of Soviet “censures” would have been an act of infamy, and because his silence and his omissions would have been received as a scandal by his faithful, and read as a caving in to the Kadar-dictatorship.

And so he even refused to sign the record of that interview. But the other Freemason-Cardinal, Casaroli, determined to bend his resolve, turned to US President Nixon so that the Cardinal would be forced out of the American Embassy. And that is what happened. Mindszenty, having lost diplomatic asylum, was compelled to give up, and on September 28, 1971, He arrived in Rome. Paul VI feigned to renew his role and his freedom; instead, barely two weeks later, the Holy See announced the resumption of diplomatic relations with Budapest. Besides disgracefully lifting the excommunication Pius XII had inflicted against the cleric who collaborated with the Kadar regime, months later, he also reneged on the promise of leaving Mindszenty as the spiritual caretaker of the Hungarians exiles in the West. But he did not stop there, as he added the humiliation of forcing him to submit any sermon or speech he were to utter in public to preliminary Vatican censure9. At this point, the Cardinal left Rome, and made contacts with his emigrant and exiled people. But Paul VI promptly resumed his attacks on the Cardinal – whose shoes he was unworthy to kiss – and on November 1, 1973, he forced him to resign from his position as Archbishop-Primate of Hungary. Dignifiedly, yet firmly, Cardinal Mindszenty, on December 8th, replied to Paul VI that he could not give in spontaneously to his intimidation; and he illustrated to him the heavy consequences his collaborationist policy with the Marxist Regime would bring about10. But Paul VI (who had betrayed Pius XII already, precisely for his covert maneuvers with Moscow), on December 18 informed him, cynically, that Hungary’s Primatial See had been declared vacant already, and, therefore, he must consider himself dismissed. Mindszenty took note of Paul VI’s unspeakable action, bequeathing to him any responsibilities for the consequences, but informed the press that the “measure” against him had been taken unilaterally, against his own will. After which, he felt free to publish his “Memoirs”, in which he narrates – in the closing chapter – also “persecutions” he suffered on the part of the Vatican diplomacy and on the part of the apologists of the “Ostpolitik”!

And now, let us again ask ourselves: Is this the Paul VI one would be willing to “beatify”? Is it perhaps on account of those excesses of “charity” he had toward that capital defender of the Catholic Faith, diabolically encroached on by the Satanic Marxist Empire? Lamentably, Paul VI would continue to ill-treat that Martyr of the “Church of Silence”, placing on the Hungarian Primatial See, in early 1976, as his successor, that darling of the Freemasons Cardinal Köenig’s, Laszlo Lekai, former spokesman of the Kadar Government by the Holy See, and defender of the ill-famed “priests of the peace”, lackeys of the Marxist regime. Additionally, in 1977, Paul VI would welcome Kadar at the Vatican, in full pomp, that Satanic persecutor of Mindszenty, that is, to whom Paul VI reaffirmed even his confidence (!!) in the “dialogue on the issues, open to the comprehension of the cares and of the action of the State that are now appropriate”11.

That is the real Paul VI. A Pope whom, in defense of his Ostpolitik, always blind and a partner in crime
with the enemies of Christ, let millions and millions of Catholics rot in the Soviet gulags, and millions more murdered, and let those Red pirates lay their hands, without ever uttering a word, upon so many Nations, and place them under the bloody Communist yoke.

9 Joseph Mindszenty, “Memoirs”, p. 363-367.

10 Joseph Mindszenty “Memoirs”, p. 370-371.

11 “Corriere della Sera”, June 10, 1977.

And to his Ostpolitik, Paul VI sacrificed also Cardinal Joseph Slipyi, Primate of the United Church of Ukraine. Arrested shortly upon being ordained Bishop, in 1940, and again on April 11, 1945, and sentenced to eight years in prison and forced labor in the harshest Soviet labor-camps, in Siberia, Polaria, Asia and Mordovia. After that, he was again sentenced into exile to Siberia, and, in 1957, there was a third conviction to seven “years’ imprisonment and forced labor”, and, at last, he suffered a fourth conviction with the incarceration in the harshest prison of Mordovia. Now, even this pastor-Martyr of the “Church of Silence”, who spent so many years in prisons, labor camps and mental institutions, and who defended, up until his death, after tortures and Soviet prisons, his Ukrainian Catholic homeland and the Church, with unfaltering faith and indomitable Episcopal conscience, was ordered into silence, always in the name of the Vatican Ostpolitik. He nonetheless continued, as best he could, to denounce the absence of any religious freedom in the USSR and the bloody “persecutions” the Ukrainian Catholic Church was suffering, until when, in 1953, he, too, was confined in Rome, in the Vatican. With that move, Paul VI had in fact placed him under “house arrest”, under continuous surveillance, and prevented by the Ostpolitik from working directly for his Ukrainian and Catholic people.

***

That same fate occurred to Cardinal Stephen Trochta, another heroic Cardinal, shamefully mistreated by the Montinian Ostpolitik, without the minimal respect and veneration, after so many years of prison and labor camps throughout most of his episcopal life. He spent, in fact, three years at Dachau’s concentration camp. Having become bishop of Litomericka, in 1947, the Communists arrested him in 1951, and he underwent continuous interrogations for three years. In 1954, he was sentenced to 25 more years of forced labor, for “treason and espionage in favor of the Vatican”. After those tortures, he was interned in a convent, at Radvanov. It was only during the “Prague Spring”, in 1969, that he was rehabilitated and made cardinal; but he was still continuously followed, spied up on, prevented from exercising his functions. In April of 1974, after the last criminal interrogation, which was to last 6 hours, he suffered a break down. The following day, this hero of the Faith passed away. Well, Paul VI had nothing to say about his Cardinal-Martyr, whereas, on that very day of his passing, he sent out a telegram to the wife of Justice Sossi, abducted by the Red Brigades [Brigate Rosse – Italian Marxist-Leninist terrorist group formed in 1969, seeking the establishment of a revolutionary state through armed struggle and to separate Italy from the Western Alliance] And then one talks of Christian “charity”! In Paul VI there was never a minimal sensibility or respect toward that heroic defender of the Faith, and it is difficult to find the words to stigmatize Paul VI’s shameful Papal silence and inaction. But that was always his cynical behavior with those that did not share his views.

Neither did he ever have a word, a reaction, or a cry of pain for the persecuted and the Martyrs of the “Church of Silence”, aching and bleeding to this day, sole true seed of a new Christian Russia.

***

Even at the international level, Paul VI’s heart always beat to the left. We recall, for example, his stance on the Vietnam War, when the Catholic Van Thieu, President of the Republic of South Vietnam, went on a visit to the Vatican. Paul VI treated him with dissimulated rudeness, while, on the contrary, he honored the Chief of the North Vietnamese delegation to the Paris conference, Xuan Thuy, with a warmhearted personal mention, paying homage, in this manner, to Hanoi’s stance on peace. The same style of deferent collaboration with Communism, Paul VI applied in all of his relations, not only with Moscow, but with the whole of the Communist world. And yet, in all of the Countries submitted to the Soviets, the failure of the Vatican was continuous and shameful. In spite of that, Paul VI continued to regard the USSR as a “Holy Russia”, utopistically comprised of Christianity and Socialism, underestimating, however, the will of dominance of Communism, and showing his blindness as to the global character of its perverted doctrine, which he envisioned, however, as the matrix of universal history.

And it is with his pro-Communist “mens” [mind] that Paul VI turned to the Chinese communists, as well. It is no secret that Beijing had created a “National Chinese Church”, independent of Rome and faithful to the Communist State. It is no secret that, since 1957, 45 Chinese clerics were consecrated bishops, unbeknownst to the Pope. Rome had stood silent, without acknowledging or approving. Then came the “Cultural Revolution”, which soon developed into a total interdiction of the cult until 1965. Paul VI, at that stage, took his first steps, granting his blessing, in his celebrated appeal to “peace” before the UN, to the admission of China into the United Nations. Paul VI, however, waited in vain a sign of gratitude from Beijing. At that point, Paul VI raised the Apostolic representation in Taiwan to the rank of Nunciature, which meant he had taken notice of the sovereignty of the Chinese Nationalists over the territory claimed by Beijing. In 1966, he took another “step” in the direction of Mao. It was on the occasion of the commemoration of the first six Chinese bishops. At St. Peter’s Basilica, Paul VI declared that the Chinese youth ought to know “with what care and love we consider their present drive toward the ideals (!!) of a united and prosperous life” (!!). But even that exhortation went unanswered.

In 1971, Communist China was admitted into the UN. The Vatican promptly saluted the event voicing out its satisfaction, even tempered by the regret for the exclusion of Taiwan. In any case, China in 1970 had already started a great offensive against the USSR, shifting closer to the United States. In that period, in the summer of 1970, there was a meaningful “occurrence”. Marshal Tito had received Monsignor Casaroli, then Minister of the Foreign Affairs of the Holy See, at Brioni, his summer residence. The head of the protocol begged him to wait a moment in the antechamber, before the Yugoslav President would see him. The door suddenly opened, and there materialized, totally unexpected, the Chinese Ambassador to Belgrade. They remained alone for a few minutes. Shortly after, however, the Vatican policy turned in the direction of China. But the Soviet reaction was not long in coming. Hence the visit of Gromyko, Minister of Foreign Affairs, to the Vatican. At the time, Italy recognized China and the Holy See was not indifferent. But when Monsignor Casaroli traveled to Moscow, shortly after, for the signature of the Treaty against the proliferation of the nuclear weapons, the Minister of Religious Affairs reserved for him a humiliating reception. The evolution toward Beijing, however, continued. The Russians were vexed and the Russian ambassador in Rome, whom in theory had no business with the Vatican, paid the Vatican various calls, during the winter of 1971-72. Paul VI oscillated between Moscow and Beijing, but when he perceived the hostility of the Russians towards the contacts between Beijing and the Vatican Curia, he resorted to a kind of reservation, which was ill accepted by China. That Chinese diffidence became apparent when President Nixon traveled to China. The Holy See was not informed, and Casaroli learned the news from the international press.

***

I relayed, here, with some particulars, only a few aspects of Paul VI’s relations with Communism and his objective of aperture and concessions to the Communist States. Even when he speaks to the right, – as Congar himself wrote – he acts, however, to the left; and “facts” speak louder than words. Thanks to his apparent neutralism and pacifism, during his Pontificate, however, subversion, aggression, and violence always had the upper hand, so that the Free World knew nothing but defeat and withdrawal. And while Paul VI did nothing in order that this world would recover from its immorality, religious indifference, incredulity, and from its resistance to the Laws and Rights of God, he stirred the peoples not in the name of God, but of justice. And even his justicialism was far from being dictated by the zeal of God, or by that of the salvation of the souls, but it carried all the spin of a social revolution. I recall, here, a few other enigmatic and perplexing “positions” of Paul VI’s: On July 29, 1969, he traveled to Uganda, and there, he manifested great respect toward “Prime Minister” Obote, a thief and bloodsucker, who his people would overthrow shortly after. And there, in the African heartland, Paul VI launched a “message” of racial liberation and equality, which carried the flavor of an appeal to a general social upheaval against the white man, in Rhodesia, in the South African Republic, and in Mozambique.

The French daily “La Croix” of August 4, 1969, wrote: «Paul VI did not fear to expose himself. And so he forcefully recalls, against Portugal and Rhodesia, that the Church supports the independence of the national territories. Although some pauses are sometimes necessary. The Church, on Her part, has contributed to the independence of the African countries affirming the dignity of persons and peoples, and making them discover their own dignity. And She provides an example of this by Africanizing Her own Hierarchy and setting out to do so where it has not been possible hitherto. No African State has anything to fear from the Church, quite the contrary». And it continued: «That courageous address aroused not only the satisfied applauses of the audience, but also a great joy amongst the African journalists present, who rushed to telephones and teleprinters to “spread it out to the entire Africa”; to say it with the closing expression of the address».

Paul VI, to be sure, reclaimed the independence of the Africans and the end of all racial discriminations, as requirements of Justice and Peace. And we find nothing wrong with that, save for the fact that Paul required them in obedience to the International Institutions. Now, this meant an unconditional submission to the decisions of the UN, which, with its “democratic laws” (!!) not only places the Law always on the side of their upheaval and claims, but also to the benefit of the “Maquis” [Rural/mountain guerrilla bands of Belgian and French anti-Nazi resistance in World War II; also of Spanish resistance against Francisco Franco’s Fascist regime] of liberation and of every other terrorist of color, as we can witness, even today, in the Zaire, in Congo, and so on. And so Paul VI’s “anti-colonialism” was similar to that of the UN, that is, of the great international Capitalism, of Communist imperialism, Russian and Chinese, and to that of the leftist intelligentsia. Anti-colonialism, that is, of that “World” that loves, supports, justifies and arms the terrorists, the slaughterers of children and women, the savages. And Paul VI received that “World” in the Vatican. For example: On July 1, 1970, he welcomed the three Leaders of the terrorist Movements of Angola, Mozambique, Guinea-Bissau and Cape Verde. He admitted them to the hand kissing ceremony [blessing] that followed the general audience. In response to the surprise voiced by the media, the “Osservatore Romano” promptly wrote: «… Any interpretation, of surprise or endorsement, had no reason to be», since – explained the newspaper – «The Pope, for his mission, receives all those demanding the comfort of his blessing…». «And that was the case with the people at issue…». Yes, but, to start with, that was not a general audience in the strict sense of the word, nor were those “three” received as Catholics, as they had been qualified, instead, in the request. “La Croix” of July 9 wrote, however: «It must be noted that Portugal… although proclaiming itself a Catholic country, shies away from the colonial policy and the repeated teachings of the Pope as to Man’s rights and Peoples’ rights. It is significant that Paul VI had handed the three African leaders a copy of the Encyclical “Populorum Progressio“… But the audience of July 1 – pursues La Croix – has, before the Portuguese government, the significance of a warning: in fact, it signals to the Nationalists that they are not considered impious, excluded from the Christian community, and that the Church does not approve of the colonial order established in the “Portuguese territories”». It was plainly an apparent neutralism on the part of Paul VI, a neutralist departure from International Law and a tacit approval of terrorism, active in those regions.

I lack, here, the space to piece back together the history of that political about-turn from West to East of Paul VI’s diplomacy, of his unhurried and yet continuous rehabilitation of atheistic Marxism, which went as so far as to authorize Catholic Christians to join the Communist party, as, for example, by installing, in a Czechoslovakian Bishopric a President of the “Pacem in Terris” Association, that is, an agent of Communism infiltrated into the Church12. Certainly, Paul VI’s fixed idea on Communism was still that contained in the “Pacem in Terris”, namely, the distinction between historical movement (fixed) and ideology (in continuous evolution) 13; hence he believed Communism could evolve and improve, and for that reason he held out his arms to it, received its emissaries, cooperated with it toward an alleged justice and peace in the world. What a delusion! But for that, Paul VI exposed himself to continuous scandals. As in that “civil marriage”, in 1965, of Father Tondi, former collaborators of his at the office of Secretariat of State, who opted out of priesthood in order to join Communism. Monsignor Montini obtained for him an extraordinary dispensation of the religious form14, quite unusual indeed – an exceptional service to his collaborator (his and Moscow’s) that aroused doubts as to its finality. Another scandal, Paul VI made through Monsignor Glorieux, who covered him when there was a “fraudulent removal of the ‘Petition’ of no less than 450 Bishops calling for the condemnation of Communism from the Council, in September of 1965”15. That scandal produced its effect. The Pope – they said – did not want that the Council to condemn Communism; hence Communism is no longer condemned.

Now, all that was the consequence of his first Encyclical, the “Ecclesiam Suam“, which opened up to dialogue, reconciliation, and cooperation with Communism. An opening that was taking shape, more and more boldly, in his social documents, oblivious of the issue of the persecuted Christians, of their sufferings, of their persecutions, so as not to stop or be hindered in his policy of rapprochement and cooperation with the Communist States. The truth of the “facts” we have been narrating, however, dispels any doubt. It will suffice to recall once more the forced transfer of Cardinal Mindszenty, from “Primate” of Hungary to Rome. It will suffice to recall once more the cry of Cardinal Slipyi, that other Confessor of the Faith, that Soviet camps runaway whom, before the Synod, cried out his indignation to the traitors who cut a peace treaty with the persecutors, oblivious of their faithful, whom Soviet Communism persecuted and tortured: «Out of 54 million Catholic Ukrainians – said he – ten million have died as a consequence of persecutions. The Soviet regime has suppressed all dioceses. There is a mountain of dead bodies and there is no one left, not even in the Church, to uphold their memory. Thousands of faithful are still detained or deported. But the Vatican Diplomacy (hence Paul VI) has chosen silence, not to upset its dealings. The times of the catacombs are back. Thousands and thousands of faithful of the Ukrainian Church are deported to Siberia and as far north as the Polar Circle, and yet the Vatican ignores this tragedy. Have the martyrs, perhaps, become inconvenient witnesses? Could we have become an albatross to the Church?». How tragic! The “Church of Silence” in such a state in order not to upset the “Silence of the Church”. It was a crime, however, which condemns Paul VI’s entire Secretary of State. Their opening to Communism begot a world of declarations, intrigues, occurrences that would make anyone who heard the thud of the tombstones Paul VI caused to fall back upon the “witnesses” that sacrificed their life to Christ, turn crimson. Like his secret dealings with the then Secretary of the Italian Communist Party (PCI), Enrico Berlinguer, who, for six years, was his diplomatic agent for the Communist Government of Hanoi16. When Paul VI decided to build a hospital in communist North Vietnam, at war, because the United States bombarded it, causing carnages, he showed, through that gesture, that his “neutralism” was biased, invariably in the direction of Communism. By now, Paul VI had become a driving belt of the Communist campaign “for Peace”, that is, for the elimination of the various national armies, so that the Masonic UN could triumph, even through the worldwide expansion of Communism.

Hence, his appeal to China, his joy at the announcement of the “Cultural Revolution”, in spite of its plunders, its profanations, its countless massacres. We again recall, here, his address on the Epiphany of 1967: «We would like the Chinese youth to know with how much trepidation and affection we consider the present exultation toward ideals of a new, laborious, prosperous, and harmonious life. We send out our support to China, so distant from us geographically and yet so spiritually close… And we would like to think of peace, with the leaders of Continental China, aware as to how this supreme human and civil ideal be intimately congenial with the spirit of the Chinese People»17. Horrible and foolish words, which cannot hide his unconditional pro-Communism.

12 Conference of Monsignor Matagrin, January 16, 1973, Mutualité; CRC 66, p. 3; DC 73, 343.

13 DC 63, 541.

14 Canon 1138.

15 Comment of “Gaudium et Spes”, Unam Sanctam Collection, t. II, p. 120, n. 120

16 Vatican Statement, February 21, 1973.

17 Address of January 6, 1967.

BUT PAUL VI DESECRATED FATIMA, TOO!

Before this inhuman anguish, it would have been Paul VI’s duty to perform a Pilgrimage to Fatima, and pray together with the Catholic throng of traditional faith, to implore the Virgin Mary for the mercy of God, and, consequently, for peace in this riotous world. But that would not be the case. Paul VI did, to be sure, travel to Fatima, on May 13, 1967, fifty years after the celestial Apparitions, but he did not go there to see, but to be seen; not to hear the message of the Virgin Mary, but to take the stage; not to kneel down, but to dominate before an endless entreating crowd; not to receive celestial commands, but to impose his earthly schemes; not to implore the “peace” from the Holy Virgin, but to demand it of man, but to impose, right there, in the domain of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the “schemes” of the Masonic World of Manhattan; in a word, to stay faithful to himself.

It was clear right from the outset. With a childish and impolite pretext, he humiliated the President of Portugal, Salazar (one of the most prestigious political Leaders of this century, and one of the major authors of the Christian civilization); first by not taking the time to meet him, at his office; then, by receiving him as any other Portuguese citizen, without cortege, without photographers, without any apparatus the President’s dignity would have required. And so, by humiliating the Head of State, Paul VI humiliated Portugal – the most faithful Country of Catholic faith – paying no consideration to the Nation or to Her leader. Even the progressive press underscored that act of contempt, flaunted, which Paul VI had toward that still deeply Catholic people. He then went on to celebrate, in the Portuguese language, a hasty and cold Mass, impossible to follow, so much so that even Fr. Rene Laurentin defined it as “stammering”.

It was noted, then, that his speeches made but brief allusion to the Apparitions of 1917, and, even these, were superficial and detached. Concerned for his political and ecumenical chimeras, Paul VI had organized a series of “audiences” that were to take up all of his time; particularly, an “ecumenical meeting” with the “representatives of the non-Catholic communities”. But the Lord humiliated him. Of all the invited, only two showed up, Presbyterians, with whom, he could only exchange a few meaningless words, as they could not understand Paul VI’s speech in the French language, while so many good Catholics would have been more than willing to pray and speak with him.

Moreover, having no wish to visit the places of the Apparitions, at Cova da Iria, in spite of its proximity, he gave everyone the impression he did not believe in them. But ever since his arrival at Fatima, he had not found the time to salute, first, Our Lady of Fatima, as he immediately climbed onto the platform, saluting the people. He had passed before the Virgin Mary without as much as raising his eyes toward her; just as, afterwards, he declined to recite the rosary with the crowd. Even the TV showed, and the newspapers noted, that Paul VI had not even recited a “Hail Mary”!

Finally: the last of the seers, Sister Lucia, asked him, weeping, for a few personal moments together alone; but Paul VI denied her even that. His interpreter, Father Alùeyda, in an interview to the Vatican Radio, would recount: «Lucia expressed the wish to tell the Pope something in person, but the Pope replied, “See, this is not a good time. On the other hand, if you have something to tell me, tell our Bishop and he will be sure to pass it on to me. Have full confidence in him and obey our Bishop in everything”». At this point the interpreter cut it short, saying, «And the Pope blessed Sister Lucia as a father blesses a dear daughter whom, perhaps, he may never see again». Sure! Because there are even “graces” that will not be repeated. At this juncture, I cannot avoid recalling that, six days earlier, on May 7, Paul VI had found the time to meet with [Italian movie stars] Claudia Cardinale and Gina Lollobrigida, at St. Peter’s, with a completely different interest. And that ten days later, on May 17, Paul VI had listened, with great attention, to the two Jewish women Presidents of the covert organization of the “Temple of Understanding”.

But it was evident that it could not be otherwise, for a “Montini” that had betrayed Pope Pius XII in order to deal with Moscow, and therefore, could not believe, even then, in the Apparitions of Fatima, in the Apparitions of a Virgin Mary that did not come to terms with Moscow, that is, unlike him, but rather urged the world to seek conversion so as not to fall into the claws of that satanic Communism, led by Freemasonry!

And so the World, because of Paul VI’s failings, continued to roam the avenues of perdition, en route to punishment. His silence and his manifest contempt of Fatima would beget no other result than that of transforming into harsh realities the threats of new “punishments” on the part of God, of a world by now slipping, unchecked, into a rotting and bloody bog, and it would then be the “Third World War”, which Freemasonry will unleash again through Communism, persecutor and triumphant everywhere. And it would be an atomic war, with its unfathomable devastations, permitted by God on account of the iniquity that has by now reached the rim, and of the ongoing “Great Apostasy”. And so the peoples with Faith, shall also relinquish their life.

But then, why did Paul VI travel to Fatima? Was it perhaps to substitute his Message for that of the “Queen of Peace”? This message he manifested in Manhattan, at the UN, by demanding “Peace” not of Heaven, but of Man’s heart, whom Paul VI entrusted it to? In fact, appearing at the window of his Vatican apartment, on the very night of his return from Fatima, he said: «At Fatima, we have asked the Virgin Mary about the avenues leading to peace, and it was answered to us that peace will be achieved». Quite brazen! As if to say that the Virgin Mary had encouraged him to pursue his “Great Design” of leading all men to building peace not through “Prayer” and “Penance”, but through the doctrine of the “Populorum Progressio“, namely, “Progress and Peace”. But that would be tantamount to attributing to Heaven his “Message”, recited at Manhattan, that “Peace” is possible because men are good; nay, that “Peace” is the work of men, all men, fruit of their converging efforts under the world leadership of the Jewish Masonic Organizations. It is no use attempting to explain his “Message”. It is sufficient to read again his “Prayer”, not to God but to man, with which he wrapped up his journey to Fatima: «Men, do endeavor to be worthy of the divine gift of peace! Men, be men (sic)!

Men, be good, be wise, be open to the consideration of the total good of the world! Men, be magnanimous! Men, get closer to one another again, with the idea of building a new world! Yes, the world of the true men, which will never be such without the sun of God on its horizon!».

A delirious speech, which we do not approve of, for we believe that Our Lady of Fatima shall again be the Virgin Mary that will crush the head of the serpent-Satan. For we believe in her calls to “Prayer” and “Penance”. For we believe we must intensify the recitation of the “Rosary for Peace”. For we believe in the “Consecration of the World to the Immaculate Heart of the Virgin Mary”, which Peace depends upon, for God has entrusted it to her, in order that, at the end of this disastrous and satanic turn to the left, “Her Immaculate Heart” may triumph over the World turned Christian again.

COMMUNISM AND MASONRY

– In 1848, Karl Schapper, Joseph Moll and Heinrich Bauer, the Illuminati who ran the “League of Righteous Men”, decided to change the name to “Communist League” of which Karl Marx became a member. They asked Marx to codify the program of Weishaupt, the founder of the “Order of the Illuminati of Bavaria” of which the “League of Righteous Men” was merely an offshoot. Thus, the “Communist Manifesto” appeared, through Marx who received substantial help from two “Illuminati” Clinton Roosevelt and Horace Greeley. The “Order of the Illuminati” is the visible root of the link between “Worldwide Communism” and “Worldwide Masonry”, while their deeper root lies in the common origin of the thought of the Rosicrucians! Communism’s, Marx conceived purpose is to create a completely centralized dictatorship and submissive to the authority of the state, encompassing the entire world; while the essential purpose of the Rosicrucians is the establishment of a dictatorial form of World Government, with the emphasis on material progress, as a first step chronologically both East and West. The two worlds have basically the same objective, apart from some variations. Their enemies, therefore, are common enemies: Man made in God’s image, thereby ensuring his freedom, the Roman Catholic Church, which maintains the “Decalogue” and “The Rights of Man” when these are considered as the counterpart of the “duties” that the creature has toward his Creator!

– «The root for man is man himself … The criticism of religious doctrine concludes that, for man, The Supreme Being is Man». (Karl Marx)

– «We want to get rid of all that is supernatural, so we declared war once and for all on religion». (Karl Marx)

– «All religious ideas are crazy! God is a monstrous corpse. Faith in God is a monstrous cowardice». (Lenin)

– «No neutrality in the face of religion. Against the propagators of religious nonsense, the Communist Party can only continue the war». (Stalin)

«The mystery of the most Holy Eucharist which Christ, the High Priest instituted, and which He commands to be continually renewed in the Church by His ministers, is the culmination and center, as it were, of the Christian religion». (Pius XII, MD 66)

CHAPTER VIII

HIS “ECUMENICAL MASS”

The debate is still open as to whether Paul VI had the authority to change the Catholic “Mass” in a way that would make it ambiguous, equivocal and of a Protestant content. The fact is, Pius V‘s “Bull”, “Quo Primum“, still stands with all its weight and authority. I shall stay, here, within the core of the issue. Namely: could Paul VI change the “texts” of the Mass? He certainly could, as a Pope, had disciplinary questions been at issue, but, because of its dogmatic nature, the faithful fulfillment of the Holy Sacrifice” of the Mass, in keeping with the Will of Jesus Christ and in line with the traditional teaching, multi-secular, given to us by the Church, Paul VI could not do it, having no “right” to “change” as much as a hair of the “Depositum Fidei”. Hence Paul VI was free to change some “prayers”, but he could not introduce anything into the Mass that might alter the Catholic doctrine, and, therefore, the traditional Catholic Faith.

Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) had ruled, already: «The consecratory formula of the “Roman Canon” had been imposed to the Apostles by Christ directly, and handed down by the Apostles to their successors».

And the Florentine Council (Session of the year 1442), in its “Decree for the Greeks and the Armenians“, had solemnly reiterated and confirmed the same dogmatic doctrine of Tradition, as witnessed by Innocent III.

Thus the “historical fact”, incontrovertible, clearly demonstrates that «The celebration of the Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Mass, and, therefore, even the formulation of the “consecration”, preceded the appearance of all of the Scriptural texts of the New Testament by at least two decades». It is consequently censurable that, after the Church had been using for nearly two millennia, continuously (and without a single dispute), the formula of the pre-conciliar “Roman Canon”, it should be necessary to revise it and modify it, particularly the “formula of the Eucharistic Consecration, willed by Christ”… ever since the onset of the Apostolic preaching of the Gospel. Now, Paul VI, having abolished the Eucharistic consecratory formula of the “Roman Canon” (which, as Innocent III and the Florentine Council had taught, was instituted by Christ and had always been used by the Roman Catholic Church), he replaced it with his own formula (which, therefore, is no longer that instituted by Christ), even making it mandatory, as of November 30, 1969, having introduced it in the “Missale Romanum Apostolic Constitution” of April 3, 1969.

And yet, St. Pius V, St. Pius X, Pius XII (the Pope of the “Mediator Dei“), John XXIII and Paul VI, himself, up until November 30, 1969, had consecrated the Blessed Eucharist with the bi-millennial formula of the “Roman Canon”, with assurance, with compassion, with faith, in the Latin language, with subdued voice, following Canon IX of Session XXIII of the Council of Trent. And thus Paul VI, with his reform of the Mass, disregarded the teaching of the Vatican I Council, which reads, verbatim: «Nor to the successors of Peter was promised the Holy Spirit in order that that, by means of His revelation, they would manifest a new doctrine, but on the contrary, in order that through His assistance, they would holily keep and faithfully expound the Revelation, taught through the Apostles, namely, the “Deposit of the Faith.”»1 (Pastor Aeternus, July 8, 1870)

Moreover, Paul VI disregarded also Pius IX’s teaching (against the “Declaratio Episcoporum Germaniae” of January-February 1875), which reads as follows: «… Finally, the opinion that the Pope, by virtue of his infallibility, be supreme sovereign, supposes a concept at all erroneous of the dogma of the Papal infallibility. As the (First) Vatican Council, with unambiguous and explicit words, has enunciated, and as it appears in its face from the nature of things, that (infallibility) is restricted to the prerogative of the Papal Supreme Magisterium: that coincides with the domain of the infallible Magisterium of the Church Herself, and it is bound to the doctrine contained in the Scriptures and Tradition, as well as to the (dogmatic) Definitions already pronounced by the ecclesiastical Magisterium… Hence, as regards the affaires of the government of the Pope, nothing has been changed in an absolute way»2.

In addition: Paul VI, having disregarded the two aforementioned “documents” of the Supreme Magisterium, went as far as tampering with the “Eucharistic Consecratory Formula”, established by Christ in person, insinuating, almost, to the entire Church, that that formula contained something that needed fixing, violating, in this manner, also Canon VI of the Council of Trent, which sanctioned: «SI QUIS DIXERIT CANONEM MISSAE CONTINERE ERRORES, IDEOQUE ABROGANDUM ESSE, ANATHEMA SIT». [If anyone will have said that the Canon of the Mass contains errors, and must therefore be abrogated, let him be anathema.]

Now, having intentionally abolished that Canon’s consecratory formula, replacing it with another, confusing or misleading and multipurpose, in order to please the Protestants, should Paul VI be listed, too, under that “excommunication” of the Council of Trent? In any case, even Cardinal Ratzinger, in his autobiography, “My Life“, makes mention of the «… Tragic error was committed by Paul VI with the prohibition of the use of Pius V’s Missal and the approval of the “new” Missal, which would break away from the liturgical tradition of the Church»3.

And he pursued4: «… I was astonished for the prohibition of the ancient Missal, since such a thing had never occurred in the entire history of liturgy. The impression was given that there was nothing to it. Pius V had established the previous Missal in 1570, in adherence to the Council of Trent; and thus it was normal that, when four hundred years and a new Council had come to pass, a new Pope would publish a new missal. But the historical truth is quite another. Pius V had limited himself to re-elaborate the Roman Missal then in use, as it had always been the case in the living course of history. Like him, several of his successors had re-elaborated that missal, without ever placing a missal in conflict with another.

It was always a dynamic process of historical growth and purification in which however the continuity was never severed. A missal of Pius V, created by him, does not exist. There is only the re-elaboration he ordered, as a stage of a long process of historical growth. The new, after the Council of Trent, took on a different nature: the storm of the Protestant Reformation had taken place, above all, in the modality of the liturgical “reforms” (…) so much so that the boundaries between what was still Catholic, and what Catholic was no longer, were hard to delineate. In that confused situation, made possible by the lack of a unitary liturgical normative and by the liturgical pluralism inherited from the Middle Ages, the Pope decided that the “Roman Missal”, the liturgical text of the city of Rome, being positively Catholic, must be introduced wherever no reference to a liturgy that would not be at least two hundred years old could be made. Wherever such a liturgy was at hand, the previous liturgy could be maintained, given that its Catholic character could be deemed safe».

And so, all St. Pius V did was to extend to the entire West the traditional Roman Mass, as a barrier against Protestantism. Paul VI, on the contrary, abolished the “Traditional Roman Rite” since his “pastoral” aims were not for the Catholics, as it should have been, but for the Protestants. And in that way, his “Novus Ordo” was but a “remarkable departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass” (see Cardinals Ottaviani and Antonio Bacci in their “Brief Critical Review”) 5.

The confirmation of that came even from the “Osservatore Romano” (October 13, 1967), in which it was announced that “The liturgical reform has taken a remarkable step forward (sic) and has come closer to the liturgical forms of the Lutheran Church”. A liturgical turn, therefore, but one that has all the flavor of a betrayal of the Faith. While St. Pius V retained the traditional “Roman Rite”, “as surely Catholic”, Paul VI, on the contrary, abolished the “Traditional Roman Rite” precisely because it was Catholic, in order to bring about his “new Missal”, positively “protestantized”, as one can easily prove.

The Catholic Faith, in fact, with respect to the Holy Mass, has always taught us that She is “the bloodless renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary”, and that, after the “Consecration”, the bread and the wine are really changed into the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. On the other hand, “Protestantism” does not believe at all in the “renewal” of the sacrifice of Calvary, nor does it believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist; and that is why in their churches, when they break the bread and drink the wine, they do it only to “commemorate” the Last Supper. They perform, that is, a mere “memorial”. There is, therefore, an essential difference between the Catholic conception and the Protestant one as to the “Eucharistic celebration”. That said, one may ask oneself: How is it that today, after Paul VI’s “reformation” of the Mass, the Protestants say they can accept the Catholic Mass, whereas, before, they would not accept at all that of Pius V?

Is it perhaps that the Protestants have embraced the Catholic Faith? Or is it rather because Paul VI’s Mass has “embraced” Lutheran thinking? Let us hear from the Protestants themselves.

Roger Mehl, Protestant theologian, in an article on “Le Monde” of September 10, 1970, wrote: «If the decisive evolution of the Eucharistic Liturgy in substitution of the (traditional) Canon of the Mass, the removal of the idea that the Mass is a Sacrifice, and the possibility of receiving Communion under the two species, are taken into account, then there is no longer any justification, for the reformed Church, to bar their members from attending the Eucharist in a Catholic Church».

More incisive it is the statement of Doctor J. Moorman, Protestant bishop of Ripon, and Anglican “observer” at the Vatican II, whom, not without a hint of irony, wrote: «Reading the scheme on Liturgy and listening to the debate thereof, I could not help but think that, if the Church of Rome continued to improve the Missal and the Breviary for a long enough while yet, one day, she would come up with the “Book of Common Prayer”»6.

Another, a British Anglican bishop adopting throughout his diocese the new Catholic rite, had this to say: «This new rite is perfectly in keeping with our Protestant ideas».

The French Catholic writer Louis Salleron, in a work, asked the fathers of Taizé: «Why are you saying that today you can adopt the new rite and not the ancient one?». Brother Roger Schutz, superior of the community of Taizé, replied, because “the notion of sacrifice is nowhere clearly affirmed”7.

Even the Superior Consistory of the (Protestant) Church of the Denomination of Augsburg of Alsace and Lorena, after the assembly of Strasbourg of December 8, 1973, stated: «We estimate that, in the present circumstances, the loyalty to the Gospel and to our Tradition no longer affords us to oppose the participation of the faithful of our Church to a Catholic Eucharistic celebration… The present forms of the Eucharistic celebration in the Catholic Church having been the reason of the present theological convergences, many obstacles that could have kept a Protestant from participating in Her Eucharistic celebration, seem on their way to extinction. It should be possible, today, for a Protestant, to recognize, in the Eucharistic celebration, the Supper instituted by the Lord»8.

Then, the Consistory pointed out: «We are keen on the utilization of new Eucharistic prayers in which we find ourselves (such as those prayers introduced by Paul VI), and which have the advantage of shading off the theology of the sacrifice, which we normally attribute to Catholicism. These prayers invite us to re-trace an evangelical theology of the sacrifice…»9. That language means that even our theology on Paul VI’s Mass has become a theology conformant to the Protestant doctrine. These are affirmations that call for reflection. Sure, our faithful do not perceive that “Protestant flavor” in Paul VI’s “new Mass”, wherein the “texts” have equivocal expressions, which give way to various interpretations, and wherein “suppressions” and “omissions” have been made of certain fundamental aspects of the dogma, but there are reasons to believe, nonetheless, that those suppressions and omissions have been certainly voluntary and calculated by the editors of the texts. In fact, not by chance did Paul VI include in the “Consilium”, entrusted with the liturgical reform, six Protestant members, in representation of the “World Council of the Churches”, namely, the Church of England, the Lutheran Church and the Protestant Community of Taizé10.

1 Denzinger, n. marg. 3070.

2 Denzinger, n. marg. 3116.

3 Joseph Ratzinger, “My Life”, p. 105-115.

4 As above, p. 111-112.

5 In the “Brief Critical Review”, a study made by a group of capable theologians, then submitted to Paul VI by the Cardinals Bacci and Ottaviani, it is said: «The “Nuovo Ordo Missae”, if the new elements are considered… does away in a remarkable manner, both in the whole and in the details, from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass».

6 Thomas Cranmer was the Anglican reformer bishop who, under Henry VIII, among his works, also wrote, in 1549, the “Book of Common Prayer”. He challenged, above all, the Catholic doctrine of the “Transubstantiation”, of the “Real Presence”, of the “Sacrifice” of the Altar, reducing the Mass, in concurrence with Luther, into a mere historical “commemoration”.

7 “World Trends”, Australia, June 1973, n. 34, p. 3.

8 “Dernières Nouvelles d’Alsace”, December 14, 1973, n. 289.

9 Idem

10 Here are the names of those six Protestant members that collaborated in the drafting of the “Novus Ordo Missae”: Georges, Jasper, Sephard, Konnet, Smith and Thurian. Among these, two Anglicans (one Briton, one American), a member of the “Lutheran World Council”, another, member of the “World Council of the Churches”, and two more Lutheran of Taizé.

And that justifies the grave affirmation of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, whom, in their “Brief Critical Review of the Novus Ordo Missae”, drafted in collaboration with a group of selected theologians, declared that the “New Mass” “departs in a remarkable manner, both in the whole and in details, from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass”. We single out, therefore, here, some material parts of Paul VI’s Mass, containing grave errors. Let us begin with the definition of “Mass”, such as it was presented in paragraph 7, at the outset of Chapter 2 of the “Novus Ordo”: “De Structura Missae”: «Cena dominica, sive Missa, est sacra synaxis seu congregatio populi Dei in unum convenientis, sacerdote praeside, ad memoriale Domini celebrandum. Quare de sanctae ecclesiae locali congregatione eminenter valet promissio Christi: “Ubi sunt duo vel tres congregati in nomine meo, ibi sum in medio eorum”11»12. [The Lord’s Supper or Mass is the sacred assembly or congregation of the people of God gathering together, with a priest presiding, in order to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason Christ’s promise applies supremely to such a local gathering together of the Church: “Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst].

As one can see, the definition of “Mass” is limited to a “supper” which is then continuously repeated13. A “supper”, that is, characterized by the assembly, chaired by a cleric, in which a simple “memorial” of the Lord is performed, recalling what He did on Holy Thursday. Now, all this does not imply either the “Real Presence”, or the “reality of the Sacrifice”, or the “sacramentality” of the consecrating priest, or the “intrinsic value” of the Eucharistic sacrifice, independently of the presence of the assembly. In a nutshell, it does not imply any of the essential dogmatic values of the Mass, which constitute, therefore, her true definition. Hence the voluntary omission is tantamount to their “supersedence”, and, at least in practice, to their denial14. The second part, then, of that definition, namely that the Mass realizes “eminently” the promise of Christ, “There, where two or three… I am in their midst”, creates an ambiguity, since that “promise of Christ” regards only, formally, a spiritual presence of Christ, by virtue of His Grace, but it does not regard at all the “Real Presence”, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, such as it is found, instead, in the Holy Eucharist. Thus binding that “promise” of Christ’s to the Mass would signify that the Mass realizes only a “spiritual presence” of Christ, and not the real and sacramental one. It would be enough to say that the definition of Mass of Paul VI’s “Novus Ordo” was “heretical”. (And Paul VI, then?). However, after reading that “Brief Critical Review” of the two cardinals, he had that “paragraph 7” amended15, if only in part, as the “text of the Mass” has remained as it was. Not a word has been changed. With that “canny” reparation, the “errors” of that paragraph would seem to have been fixed. Would seem. Not so! The “Mass” is a “supper”, just as before; the “sacrifice” is but a “memorial”, just as before; the “presence of Christ in the two species” is qualitatively equal to His presence in the assembly, in the priest and in the Scriptures.

The laity will not perceive the subtle distinction of the “Sacrifice of the altar”, called, now, “enduring”, but that was the “mens” [mind] of the editors, as Rahner explained in his comment to the “Sacrosanctum Concilium” art. 47: «Art. 47 contains – it was already in the Council – a theological description of the Eucharist. Two elements are worthy of attention: it is said to let “endure” the sacrifice of Christ, whereas the expressions “REPRAESENTATIO” (Council of Trent) and “RENOVATIO” (more recent Papal texts) have been deliberately left out. The Eucharistic celebration is characterized by a word, taken from the recent Protestant discussion, namely, “memorial of the death and resurrection of Jesus”». Now, is that not a departure from the bloodless renewal of the Sacrifice of the Calvary? In fact, according to this “new definition”, the sacrifice of Christ would have taken place only once and for all, and would be enduring in its effect. But that is the doctrine of Luther! If the “Sacrifice” is a mere “memorial”, in which the effect of the only sacrifice endures, then Christ is only present spiritually; and that diminishes Him, even though the expression “in persona Christi” has been introduced, and the “Real Presence” is only symbolized in the two species. Proof of this can be had also in the declarations of the German theologians, such as Lângerlin, collaborator of J. A. Jungmann, and Johannes Wagner, whom, speaking in fact of the “new version” of paragraph (7), say: «In spite of the new version, granted, in 1970, to the militant reactionaries (that would be Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci… and us), and not disastrous nonetheless (!!), thanks to the ability of the editors, the new theology of the Mass also avoids the cul-de-sac of the post-Tridentine theories of Sacrifice, and corresponds for all time to certain inter-confessional documents of recent years»16.

That would mean that even the current cult is still crippled. And so, “quid dicendum” of Paul VI?

Are we not, perhaps, confronted with a “fact” that is unprecedented throughout the history of the Roman Pontificate? It is appropriate, therefore, to recall once more that one must not confuse the jurisdictional prerogatives of the Supreme Apostolic Authority, which include, to be sure, the legislative freedom of every Pontiff, whereas others are marked by impassable limits, to any Pontiff, until the end of time. Namely, the Pope has no constraints when acting in the area of “discipline”, so long as his action did not involve the substance and security from any contamination of error of any “De Fide” dogma, as this is “ex sese irreformabile”17. «Neque enim FIDEI DOCTRINA, quam Deus revelavit… velut “Philosophicum Inventum”, proposita est humanis ingentis perficienda (!)… sed tamquam DIVINUM DEPOSITUM CHRISTI… Sponsae tradita, fideliter custodienda et infallibiliter declaranda…»18. [For the doctrine of Faith, which God revealed, has not been handed down as a philosophical invention, to the human mind to be perfected but has been entrusted as a Divine Deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted… – Denz. 1800] It is thus evident that St. Pius V knew what he was saying when he mapped out a limit, impassable “in perpetuo”, even by all of his successors. His “QUO PRIMUM” Constitution did not have for an object a disciplinary issue, subject to a Pastoral Government, which might even be changed in accordance with the times, but his Constitution had for an object a definitive Codification of that which had been, ever since Apostolic Times, the dogmatic substance, immune from doctrinal errors, of the Mass; as EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE (and not “Supper”!) and as CELEBRATION, which is not at all, by its own nature, “COLLECTIVE” (as provided for, instead, in art. 14 of the “INSTITUTIO GENERALIS”, after the Vatican II), but only MINISTERIAL CELEBRATION OF SACRAMENTAL PRIESTHOOD!

11 Matthew 18, 20.

12 Translation: “The Sunday supper, or Mass, is the holy synapse (Religious Assembly) or gathering of the people of God, under the presidency of the priest, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. That is why the promise of Christ carries a value, in an eminent way, to the assembly: “When two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in midst of them” (Matthew 18, 20)”.

13 “Novus Ordo Missae”, n. 8, 48, 55d, 56.

14 “Brief Critical Review”, p. 5. It goes without saying that even if one single dogma were to be negated, there would collapse, ipso facto, all the dogmas, since the very principle of the infallibility of the supreme solemn Hierarchical Magisterium, whether it be Papal or conciliar, would collapse.

15 The new text sounds as follows: «In the Mass, or “Cena Dominica”, the people of God are gathered to celebrate, under the presidency of the priest, acting “in persona Cristi”, the memorial or Eucharistic Sacrifice. Of this local assembly stands, in an eminent way, the promise of Christ: “When two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in midst of them”».

16 From the book: “Tradition and Progress”, published at Graz.

17 Vatican I Council, Session IV, “De Romani Ponteficis Infallibili Magisterio”, Dogmatic definition, Denz. n. marg. 1839; marg. est. 3074.

18 Vatican I Council, Session III, “De Fide Catholica” Constitution – Denz. n. marg. est. 3020; marg. int. 1800.

In fact, that “participation of the people in the rite” has never meant (in twenty centuries of doctrine of the Church) a “Right of the People” to actively participate in the Mass (as the rite itself would be invalid), but only “concession”, on the part of the teaching Church, to participate, through dialogue, to some portions and prayers, of merely ceremonial value, but not to those bearing an “official” and “Consecratory” value, sole prerogative of the priest, validly consecrated, “conditio sine qua non” to the “Sacrificii Eucharistici” (Eucharistic Sacrifice)… For these “dogmatic reasons”, Pope St. Pius V, in his “QUO PRIMUM” Constitution, concludes with these solemn words: «Nulli ergo, omnino “hominum” (and thus all, including his successors) liceat hanc paginam Nostrae PERMISSIONIS, STATUTIS, ORDINATIONIS, MANDATI, PRAECEPTI, DECRETI et INHIBITIONIS… INFRINGERE… vel Ei… ausu temerario… contraire (!)… Si quis autem Hoc Attentare Praesumpserit… INDIGNATIONEM OMNIPOTENTIS DEI ac Beatorum PETRI et PAULI, Apostolorum Eius… SE NOVERIT INCURSURUM…». [Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree and prohibition. Should any person venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.] Did Paul VI, perhaps, ignore all that? It is opportune, therefore, that I also underscore a fundamental point of the Mass, perhaps the most injured in that Mass of Paul VI’s: the Essence of the Sacrifice. a) The “Real Presence” While in the “Suscipe” of the Mass of St. Pius V the “aim” of the offering was explicitated, here, in Paul VI’s new Mass no mention is made of it. Hence one can say that the change in the formulation reveals a doctrinal change. In other words: the non-explicitation of the Sacrifice is tantamount to the suppression of the central role of the “Real Presence”. In fact, that “Real and permanent Presence” of Christ, in Body, Soul and Divinity, is never alluded to. The very word “transubstantiation” is completely ignored. b) The “Consecratory Formulas” The ancient formula of the Consecration was not a “narrative” one – as it is, instead, that of the “new Mass” – but it was a sacramental formula in the strict sense of the word. On the contrary, the “new consecratory formulas” are uttered by the priest as if they were an “historical narration”, not as expressing a categorical and affirmative judgment, offered by He in whose Person He is acting: “Hoc est Corpus meum”; and not: “Hoc est Corpus Christi”. Hence the words of the Consecration, such as are introduced into the context of the “Novus Ordo”, may be valid only by virtue of the minister’s intention, but may also be invalid, since they are no longer valid “ex vi verborum”, and that is, by virtue of the “modus significandi” they had until yesterday, in Paul VI’s Mass. In addition, Paul VI gave the language of the Universal Church19 (against the will expressed by the Vatican II itself) the final blow, with the “Sacrosanctum Concilium” “Apostolic Constitution”, which states: “in tot varietate linguarum una (?) eademque cunctorum praecatio… quo vis ture fragrantior ascendat”. [In such a variety of tongues one and the same prayer of all… may rise more fragrant than incense]. So he did the same with “Gregorian Chant”, even though Vatican II had it acknowledged as being “liturgiae romanae proprium”20, (proper to the Roman Liturgy) ordering that “principem locum obtineat.”21 [it holds first place].

19 “Sacrosanctum Concilium” Constitutions, art. 36, art. 54.

20 Sacr. Conc. n. 116. “Acta Apostolicae Sedis”, September 9, 1968, p. 536 and subsequent.

21 Art. 36: «Linguae latinae usus in ritibus latinis servetur» (The use of the Latin language be retained in the Latin rites). Art. 54: «Provideatur… ut christifideles etiam lingua latina partes Ordinarii Missae quae ad ipsos spectant possint simul dicere vel cantare». (One must ensure… that the faithful know how to recite and chant, also in the Latin language, the ordinary parts of the Mass pertaining to them). In the “Costitutio de Sacra Liturgia”, at Chapter VI, dedicated to the Chanting of the “Sacred Music”, it is said: «The Church acknowledges the Gregorian Chant as the chant proper to the Roman Liturgy, thus claiming for it a central place in the liturgical acts…». In the “Holy Congregation for the Rites” “Acta Apostolicae Sedis” (of September 9, 1968, p. 536 and subsequent), it is said: «In quavis Basilica, pro opportunitate, diebus praesertium festivis, una alteravae missa, sive lecta sive in cantu, lingua latina celebrantur. In eiusmodi missis cantatis, gregorianae melodiae vel sacra poliphonia peculiari cura et studio proferantur». (In all of the Basilicas, as opportunities allow, especially on holidays, one or more masses, read or chanted, are to be celebrated in the Latin language. In such masses, when chanted, Gregorian tunes, or holy polyphony, are to be performed with particular care and love). Etc.

And so the “new rite”, pluralistic and experimental, would be bound to times and places; but in that way, not only the “unity of cult” has been severed, but also the “unity of Faith”.

At this juncture, we may positively conclude that a real difference exists between the “new rite” and the “ancient” one, a real substantial difference. In fact, there cannot be but an accidental difference if the Protestants, today, are ready to participate in the “new rite” while they still steer clear of the old one, which truly illuminates the aim of the “Sacrifice”, Propitiatory, Expiatory, Eucharistic and Latreutic, whereas, in such a clear manner, it no longer exists in the “new rite”, in which even the Offertory has been lost.

Just as Luther did, when along with the Offertory, he suppressed the Elevation, eliminating, in this way, any notion of “Sacrifice”. Even the “modifications” of the Consecration brought about in the “Novus Ordo”, are similar to those introduced by Luther. The essential words of the Consecration, in fact, are no longer merely the words of the form that was previously in use: “Hoc est Corpus meum”, and: “Hic est calix Sanguinis mei”, but in the “New Mass” of Paul VI, the essential words begin with: “He took the bread…” until after the Consecration of the wine: “Hoc facite in meam commemorationem”; just as Luther did! And that because the “narration” of the Supper has to be read, which is, in point of fact, but “a narration, and not a sacrificial action, hence not a Sacrifice, but a mere “memorial”.

Now, why in the world did Paul VI let Luther be copied so submissively? The only explanation one might venture, I believe, is that of ecumenism, that is, toward a more resolute rapprochement with the Protestants. And with that in mind, Paul VI invited the Protestants to be part of the “Commission for the Liturgical Reform”.

But how was it possible that some Protestants could be invited – who do not share our same Faith – to participate in a Commission for the “Reformation of the Catholic Mass”? Was it that Paul VI, perhaps, with his obsession for “universal brotherhood”, for the sake of unity at any costs, had wanted, with that “Mass of His”, cause the “frontiers” separating the Catholics from the Protestants to crumble to the ground? If that was the case, then his was a capital error, nay, a blatant betrayal of the Catholic Faith. The true Christian unity, in fact, is realized only in the “integral truth”, in the perfect faithfulness to the doctrine of Jesus Christ, such as “Peter” transmitted to all the successive “Vicars of Christ”. To do away from that, is a betrayal. Period! In fact, the “fruits” derived from Paul VI’s “new Mass” stand as an eloquent proof of that betrayal. I would never come to lay down my pen, were I to document the countless lists of scandals and sacrileges, of “black masses”, of obscenities, perpetrated after Vatican II, precisely on account of the “new liturgy”. Naturally, not all of the disorders can be ascribed directly to Paul VI.

They are, however, the “fruits” of his “liturgical revolution”, and of his inexplicable “tolerance” toward so many ecclesiastics that profaned the churches, turning them into dancing halls, theaters, concert halls, social and Communist convention halls, without ever intervening with a punishment, without ever requiring the “re-consecration” of the profaned churches.

The apathy, the scandalous indifference of so great a portion of the religious Hierarchy before the profaned Eucharist (cabaret music, double entendre chants, or dull, indecent dances, etc.) cannot be said to be a token of faith in the “Holy Sacrifice of the Mass”, in the “Real Presence”, in the Greatness of God in the Eucharist. Nor having relegated the Blessed Sacrament into a corner of the church, almost hidden from the people; and the disappearance of the Ostensory, and the suppression, nearly everywhere, of the Holy Hour, of the “Forty Hours”, of the processions of the “Corpus Domini”; and the Communion received standing; and the abolition of the genuflections before the Blessed Sacrament, and so forth and so on. They have all been innovations that have diminished the Faith in the Eucharist, and, consequently, the esteem and love to the Eucharistic Jesus, among both the clerics and the faithful.

And what were the reasons for doing that? Could anyone claim it was all “unintentional”? In any case, Paul VI’s presentation of the traditional doctrine on the Eucharist in his encyclical “Mysterium Fidei” certainly does not play in his defense for all that he has done, favored and tolerated. Nor will the citation of the “Conciliar Constitution on the Liturgy” for many of his directives paved the way to capriciousness and confusion.

As these “facts” demonstrate:

– On September 21, 1966, Paul VI authorized Miss Barbarina Olson, a Presbyterian (Protestant), to receive the Communion, during her wedding Mass, in a Catholic church, without requiring the abjuration of her previous “errors”, nor confession, nor any form of profession of Faith22. And so, after that scandalous “Papal permission”, there presently followed not a few other “inter-communions“.

The most notorious are those of the “Assembly of Medellin”, that of Uppsala, at the “Ecumenical Council of the Churches”; that of Vaugirard (Paris); an inter-communion, the latter, Paul VI would then disapprove of, if only for the “form”23.

In fact, in July of 1972, in an official Decree promulgated with Paul VI’s approval, Cardinal Willebrands announced that, as of that moment, the “inter-communions” were left to the judgment of the Bishop.

This meant the Bishops could authorize “Protestants” to take communion during the Mass of the Catholics, and, inversely, that the Catholics could participate in the Protestant celebrations. Since then, however, it was doubtful whether Paul VI still believed in the “Real Presence”, and, consequently, in the necessary “conditions” to receive Christ in the Eucharist; for the reason that, had he really believed in it, he would not have granted those “permissions” to the Protestants to receive the Eucharist, for the very reason that they do not believe in it at all.

– On March 23, 1966, Paul VI received Dr. Michael Ramsey, head of Anglicanism, a Protestant religion.

Now, the Catholic Church, up until Paul VI, had never recognized the validity of the “priestly Ordinations” of that religious sect. Leo XIII, in fact, in his Bull “Apostolicae Curae“, declared it “irrevocable” (“perpetuo ratam, firmam, irrevocabilem”) and taught that the “Ordinations conferred according to the Anglican rite are absolutely ineffective and entirely void”.

And yet Paul VI, on that March 23, not only considerately received Doctor Ramsey, but went as far as putting a pastoral ring on his finger – symbol of jurisdiction, that is – and then begged him to bless the crowd gathered at St. Paul Outside the Wall. [Important Basilica in Rome’s St. Paul district]

Now, that was a gesture that signaled a clear departure from the thought of Leo XIII and of the other Popes; and it was like an official approval of the Anglican ministries. It is proven by the fact that, shortly after, the Anglicans celebrated the Eucharist in the Vatican. In addition, the Episcopalian Deans of the United States and Canada, came to Rome for the Holy Year and celebrated the Eucharist in the Chapel of the Ethiopian College (on Vatican City’s territory). It was perhaps the first Eucharistic celebration of a Church that had come out of the Protestant Reformation, to take place in the Vatican. The group was composed of 75 people, led by the Dean of Washington’s Episcopalian Cathedral, the most Reverend Francis B. Sayre, and was accompanied by the Catholic archbishop of Washington, Monsignor William Wakefield Baum. Paul VI greeted them warmly during the general audience of Wednesday, April 2324.

22 “La Croix” of December 3, 1966 – D. C. January 1967, n. 1485, p. 96.

23 D. C., March 2, 1969, N. 1535, p. 214.

24 S. C. June 15, 1975. To be noted: in that same period, the Vatican tried Monsignor Lefèbvre in order to suppress his Seminary and strip his “Brotherhood” even of the “right to existence”. Subsequently, not only was Monsignor Lefèbvre barred from celebrating the Holy Mass on Vatican territory, but Paul VI denied him the right to celebrate with him.

Isn’t all that very grave? The Reverend Father Vinson, after his book: “The New Mass and the Christian Conscience“, published another brochure under the title: “Messe de l’Antéchrist”; a title suggested to him – writes he – by a text of St. Alphonse Maria Liguori: “L’Antéchrist (…) tâchera d’abolir et abolira réellement la Saint Sacrifice de l’autel, en punition des péchés des hommes”! (“The Antichrist (…) will try to abolish it, and actually abolish the Holy Sacrifice of the altar, as punishment for the sins of men”!) Now, if we read again what Monsignor Annibale Bugnini, one of the inspirers and authors of that “Novus Ordo Missae”, wrote: «It is about a fundamental change, I would say, an almost total alteration, in certain points, an authentic creation»… and if we read again the “Letter to Paul VI” accompanying the “Brief Critical Review of the ‘Novus Ordo Missae'”, wherein it is said that these changes in the Mass leads one to believe «…That truths, always believed by the Christian people, can mutate or remain silent without infidelity to the Sacred Deposit of the Doctrine of the Catholic Faith which is bound to for all times», one would cease doubting that the “Novus Ordo Missae” «… represents, both in its whole and in details, a remarkable departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass, such as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent, which, by fixing definitively the “Canons” of the rite, erected an impassable barrier against any heresy that would affect the integrity of the Mystery»25… and one would convince oneself that the liturgical changes, operated in the “Novus Ordo Missae”, are neither light nor small nor simple, but that they are a “…very serious fracture”, since “… what HAS ENDURED through these volumes of changes, holds only a diverse minor place, although it is still there”26

In fact – we repeat – the “Novus Ordo Missae” does not manifest at all, in a clear manner, the faith in the “Real Presence” of Our Lord Jesus Christ; but it confuses, rather, the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist with His “spiritual presence” among us. In addition, it facilitates the confusion upon the definite difference between “Hierarchical Priesthood” and “common priesthood of the faithful”, such as the Protestants regard as desirable. Besides, it favors the Protestant heresy, which affirms that “the faith of the people and not the words of the Priest render Christ present in the Eucharist”. And the introduction of the Lutheran “prayer of the faithful”, too, shows well the error of the Protestants, which holds that every faithful is a priest. And again: that having rendered collective the “Confiteor” (which the Priest, in the Traditional Mass, recited by himself) was a resumption of Luther’s error, when he refused to accept the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church, according to which the Priest is judge, witness and intercessor near to God. Graver yet was that having reduced the Offertory into a mere preparation of the gifts, along the lines of Luther, whom eliminated it altogether, precisely for the reason that the Offertory expressed, in an undisputable manner, the sacrificial and propitiatory character of the Holy Mass. And that is one of the main reasons the Protestants can now celebrate their “supper” using the text of the “Novus Ordo Missae”, without renouncing their beliefs. Max Thurian, a Taizé Protestant, also affirmed it, saying that one of the fruits of the “Novus Ordo Missae” is that the non-Catholic communities will be able to celebrate the supper with the same prayers of the Catholic Church. It is theologically possible”27.

And so Monsignor Dweyer, Archbishop of Birmingham and spokesman of the Episcopal Synod, could thus rightly say: «The liturgical reform is the key of the revision. Let us not fool ourselves: it is from here, the revolution starts».

Paul VI, therefore, with his “New Mass” imposed the “errors” already condemned by the Council of Trent (dogmatic and pastoral), and stood against Pius VI, who condemned those very “errors” of the Synod of Pistoia against the Jansenists, and against Pius XII who condemned, for example, in his Encyclical “Mediator Dei”, the dinner-table-shaped altar…

And so with his “liturgical revolution”, Paul VI realized the Judaic-Masonic aspirations of transforming the Catholic Church into a “NEW ECUMENICAL CHURCH” that would embrace any ideology, any religion, bundling together truths and errors. In that sense, symptomatic is Dom Duschak’s statement, made on November 5, 1962: «My idea would be to introduce an ecumenical mass…»; and asked whether such a proposal came from those of his diocese, he replied: «No, I think, rather, that they would oppose it, as would numerous Bishops; but were it possible to put it into practice, I think in the end they would come to accept it»28. In any case, that giving more value to the altar than to the Tabernacle marked «… an irreparable dichotomy between the presence of the Eternal Supreme Priest, in the celebrant, and that of the Presence sacramentally realized. Today, in fact, it is recommended that the Blessed be kept in a secluded place, wherein the private devotion of the faithful might be expressed, as if it were a relic, hence, upon entering the church, one’s eyes would no longer be fastened onto the Tabernacle, but on an empty and bare dinnertable»29.

25 “Brief Critical Review”.

26 Idem

27 “La Croix” of May 30, 1969.

28 Ralph M. Wiltgen, “Le Rhine se jette dans le Tibre”, pp. 37-38.

29 Idem

But the great and holy Pius XII had written, «To separate the Tabernacle from the altar is tantamount to separating two things that, by force of their nature, must remain a whole»30. And so, in conclusion, we can say that the “Novus Ordo Missae” is no longer a “vertical” cult, going from man to God, but it has become a “horizontal” cult, between man and man. The “New Church” of Paul VI, that is, has become, as we have already demonstrated, the “religion of man”, to the detriment of God’s glory. I also wish to note, here, that in the “libera nos” of the “Novus Ordo Missae” not one mention is made of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the Saints. Her and their intercession, therefore, is no longer invoked, not even in times of peril”31. And I would also have you note that in none of the three new “Eucharistic Prayers” «… is there the tiniest hint as to the state of suffering of the departed, and in none is there the possibility of a special “memento”; which depletes the faith in the propitiatory and redemptive nature of the Sacrifice»32. At this juncture, we also wish to stress that Paul VI’s “Novus Ordo Missae” is not even faithful to the directives of the Council, but that, rather, it is in plain contradiction with it, since the texts and rites, according to the Council, had to be arranged “in such a way that would allow the holy realities signified by them to be expressed more clearly”, that is, the texts and rites were to express more clearly the holy which they signified33. On the contrary, the “Novus Ordo Missae” represents a collection of changes, of deformations, of departures, of simplistic expedients, naïve and harmful or altogether senseless. It ceases to utter – or misreads– numerous truths of the Catholic Faith. It will suffice to mention, here, the principal titles of the points of departure and non-observance of the principles set out by Vatican II itself: – a “new definition” of the sacrifice of the Mass; – a suppression of the Latreutic element; – an insufficiency of “prayers of offering”; – the suppression of the Trinitarian formulas; – the elimination of important prayers, both of the celebrant and of the faithful; – the diminishing of Angels and Saints; – the grave dogmatic shortfall of the new Canons; – the weakened position of the celebrant; – the mutation of sacred ornamentations within the churches and of the religious expression of the faithful; – the free spaces for the autonomous “creativity” of the celebrant; – etc…

30 Pius XII: “Allocution at the International Congress on Liturgy”, Assisi – Rome September 18-23, 1956 – also “Mediator Dei”, I, 5, p. 25, note 28.

31 Idem.

32 Idem.

33 “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, n. 21

It is impossible, therefore, to cite as evidence that the form impressed upon the “Ordo Missae” had been based upon the indications of the Vatican II. It is also demonstrated by the “fact” that the Bishops, after attending that “normative Mass” presented by Paul VI, rejected it. In fact, it failed to reach the majority of two third of the Conciliar Fathers. That “new Mass” is thus entirely Paul VI’s doing. Behind the “Novus Ordo” stands Paul VI solely with his authority. It must be said, in addition, that the “Traditional Mass”, said of St. Pius V, was never legally abrogated, and it remains, to this day, a true rite of the Catholic Church, through which the faithful can fulfill their holiday precept34because Pius V had granted a perpetual indult (which was never abrogated), valid “for all time” to celebrate the Traditional Mass, freely, legally, without any scruples and without incurring any punishments, conviction or censure35.

On the other hand, Paul VI himself, in promulgating his “Novus Ordo Missae”, never had any intention of binding it by Papal infallibility, as he himself stated in his address of November 19, 1969: «… the rite and related record are not per se a dogmatic definition; they are susceptible to a theological qualification of a different value…». And again: Paul VI, himself, to the explicit question of the British Cardinal John Heenan, as to whether he had prohibited the Tridentine Mass, had replied: «It is not my intention to prohibit the “Tridentine Mass” in any way»36.

Vatican I Council (dogmatic) established and stated that: «The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter in order that, through His intercession, they preach a new doctrine, but in order that, through His assistance, they keep and expound faithfully the Revelation or deposit of Faith, transmitted by the Apostles»37. Therefore it must be concluded that Paul VI’s “Novus Ordo Missae”, having introduced into his “New Church,” a new doctrine” – as we have previously demonstrated – cannot be a matter of obedience (being obedience in the service of Faith and not Faith in the service of obedience), hence any faithful is left with a theological duty of obedience to God38 prior than to man, if he intends to remain inflexible in his profession of the Catholic Faith, according to the infallible doctrine of “Tradition”!

34 Canon Law Code, Canons 22 and 30.

35 Papal Bull: “Quo Primum”.

36 Card. Heenan, Letter to Houghton Brown, president of the “Latin Mass Society”.

37 D. S. 3070.

38 Records, 4, 29

MASONIC ECUMENISM

– Martin Luther belonged to the sect of the Rosicrucians! To understand the relationship between Martin Luther, the Knights of the Rosicrucians, their aversion to the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross and the killing of God, here are some excerpts from the book by Leon Meurin: “Freemasonry: The Synagogue of Satan“, in which he writes: «There has never been an order of knights that were outside of Freemasonry! (…) a degree of secret society, whose origins go back beyond the seventeenth century. (…). That sad Knight of Hell, Luther, “wore his seal of a Rose mounted on a cross”, and it would go beyond that, the Andreins (Valentin Andreae and his disciples), switching to deism and gnostic naturalism would give to their sect, in Sweden (in the sixteenth century), the name, then so famous in the annals of depravity and apostasy of: Rosicrucians. (…). The degree of Rose-Cross, 18th of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, is a profane ridicule of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. (…). In the 18th degree, the Angel liar induces his slaves to offer a bloody sacrifice. There, the infernal mystery of Freemasonry is as deep as it is horrible. We are in the presence of a sacrifice to Satan. Just as the Synagogue prompted by Satan to crucify The Lamb of God, so too does the Masonic Synagogue crucifies him again in effigy (…). The degree of the Rose-Cross is essentially the figurative renewal of the bloody deicide committed for the first time at Calvary, as the Mass is the real and bloodless renewal». (pp. 329-333).

– Elected spiritual heir Valentin Andreae, Amos Komensky (Comenius) undertook to lay the foundations of the modern world understood by designing a plan of Society extended to all peoples with its own proper plan of POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS ECUMENISM. In the Comenius program, a Super-Church would rise from the darkness, which would integrate all religions through a Council of national churches, in order to reach in the name of a humanistic unity, a philanthropic and tolerant disposition to proclaim the equality and the coequal dignity of all religions!

– A Disciple of the Rosicrucians, Saint-Yves d’Alveydre (one who continued the work of Comenius), the Abbot Paul Roca (1830-1893), who was condemned and banned by the Index of the Holy Office in 1888, was one most responsible for Catholic modernism. In contact with occultists of the Scottish Rite of Martinique and Theosophy, Roca, before the participants of the 1889 Congress of spiritists and spiritualists, proclaimed: «My Christ is not that one of the Vatican (…), Christ is the pure Adam-Kadmon of the Kabbalists, i.e. THE RELIGION OF MAN»!

The “ecumenical plan” of Canon Roca stated that he would arrive at a religion and a «universality of Christianity which would place all the religious centers of the earth in harmony» (in “Glorieux centenaire). The rites will be simplified to facilitate the dissemination of new concepts of ecumenism: «I think the Divine worship, as expressed in the liturgy, ceremonial, ritual and precepts of the Roman Church will suffer in the near future in an ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, a transformation…will be put in harmony with the new state of consciousness and modern civilization». (P. Virion, “Mystery of iniquity”) The plan to destroy the Catholic Church, in the minds of these high initiatives and programs of Roca, demands the inclusion of Christianity in the Masonic “Universal Religion”.

To do this, however, it was necessary:

1. An adaptation of doctrine, which assumes the equivalence of all religions and all religious opinions;

2. New dogma, first of all with Evolution, which assumes Gnostic Pantheism and Integral Humanism, to make the transition from the sphere of the Church’s mystical and sacramental mission (supernatural) to the politico-social (natural);

3. Reconciliation with Masonry: For Roca, in fact, “pure Christianity” is “socialism” (…) that requires identification of Christ with humanity: the Gospel thus becomes the history of humanity, through sacrifice, comes to the resurrection!

APPENDIX 1

THE “OATH” ON THE DAY OF HIS CORONATION

Paul VI, too, on the day of his “Coronation” (June 30, 1963), pronounced the following “oath”, addressing Our Lord Jesus Christ:

«EGO PROMITTO … […] … vel auso sacrilego hoc praesumentibus consentire».

«I vow – to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein; to the contrary: with glowing affection as their truly faithful student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort;

– to cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order, should such appear; to guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were the Divine ordinances of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to the severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all that I shall confess. If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice (pp. 43 o 31). Accordingly, without exclusion, we subject to severest excommunication anyone – be it ourselves or be it another – who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the Orthodox Faith and the Christian Religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture». (From: “Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum”, p. 54 o 44, P.L. 1 o 5)

Dreadful oath indeed! But I believe it is no use by now to comment upon it, after the “revolution” the Church had to undergo under Paul VI’s Pontificate. A “revolution”, in fact, which left out no aspects as to Dogma, Morals, Liturgy, and even Discipline. A “revolution”, nonetheless, that had already been foreseen and courageously denounced by St. Pius X, in his condemnation of “Modernism”1.

Today, however, one can say that Paul VI utterly disregarded his “oath” before God, pronounced on the day of his coronation, by which he coerced himself “not to diminish or change anything of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors”… and “to cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order, and to guard the Holy Canons and Apostolic Constitutions of his Predecessors”.., “and to subject to the severest excommunication anyone – be it ourselves or be it another – who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the Orthodox Faith and the Christian Religion…”. Hence Paul VI’s “oath” was a “perjury”, since, de facto, he made it utterly null and void. Just as when he approved the “Dignitatis Humanae“, a Vatican II “declaration” on “religious freedom”, which granted, de facto, to any “error” what-so-ever, the rights that are the exclusive prerogative of the “truth”, namely, of “Divine Revelation”, for it is a “declaration” of “false freedom”, formally and infallibly always condemned by the Magisterium of the Church, for the reason that it goes counter to the Catholic doctrine. In Pius IX’s “Quanta Cura“, for example, the condemnation of that “religious freedom” is quite clear: “… Liberty of perdition… against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers”; synthesis of various errors that, “by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned”. But Paul VI, in spite of that patent “condemnation” of one of his predecessors, confirmed the “Dignitatis Humanae” in these other terms: «Each and every thing, established in this Declaration, has met with the satisfaction (?!) of the Fathers of the holy Council. And we, by virtue of the Apostolic authority bestowed upon us by Christ, together with the Venerable Fathers, in the Holy Spirit, approve them, decree them and establish them, and that which has thus been established, we dispose that it be promulgated to the glory of God». (Rome, at St. Peter, December 7, 1965. I, Paul VI, Bishop of the Catholic Church).

It is a clear and barefaced rebellion to the doctrine of the former Catholic Church, and many voices soared in protest. But such an enormity became norm of the “New Conciliar Church”, so much so that the “New Church” held, by now, any “De Propaganda Fide” Ministry, counterproductive. Hence one has plenty of reasons to be concerned about Paul VI’s soul, after his passing from this life to the Supreme Tribunal of God, where he must have had to “account” for his 15 years of Pontificate, during which there was no significance to the words and deeds to the “oath” he had made on June 30, 1963.

A Paul VI, that is, who betrayed CHRIST, CHURCH and HISTORY!

1 Pius X, “Lamentabili” of July 3, 1907, DB 200; “Pascendi” of Sept. 8, 1907

APPENDIX 2

“FIVE-PONTED STAR” “SIGNATURE” OF THE PONTIFICATE OF PAUL VI

Detail of tile original N ° 12 of “bronze doors” of St. Peter’s Basilica (built to mark the 80th birthday of Paul VI) showing Paul VI with the “five-pointed star (which we highlighted red), engraved on the back of his left hand/Magnification of the back of the left hand of Paul VI, engraved with “five-pointed star”

“Five-pointed Star” “Signature” of the Pontificate of Paul VI

“SYMBOL” OF THE HATRED TO GOD AND RELIGION

Karl Marx had written: «Religions are the opium of the people»; «The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness»1.

And again, «The root of man is man himself… The critique of religion comes to the doctrinal conclusion that, TO MAN, THE SUPREME BEING IS MAN»2.

Lenin’s hatred for religion was every bit as fierce: «All religious ideas are an unspeakable abomination. God is a monstrous cadaver. Faith in God is a weakness»; «From now on we shall be pitiless with everyone. We shall destroy everything, and on the ruins WE SHALL BUILD OUR TEMPLE». Lunaciarskij, Minister of Education of the Lenin government, in lieu of the religion of God proposed the religion of hatred: «Down with the love of thy neighbor! Hatred, that’s what is wanted! WE MUST LEARN HOW TO HATE. THAT IS OUR RELIGION. Through hatred, we shall conquer the world». Stalin, too, was brimming over with hatred against Religion: «There is no room for neutrality when it comes to Religion. Against the propagators of religious absurdities, the Communist Party can but pursue its war». Khrushchev stayed the course of his predecessors: «The struggle against Religion is at one with the shaping up of the NEW MAN, citizen of the Communist society». And thus the Religion of God was abolished, and, in Her place, there appeared a new one: the religion of man. The Hierarchy, the institutions, the places of cult, the rites and any reference to the Religion of God were jeered at, repressed, encroached on, abolished, eliminated, and erased. Even the images and the religious symbols suffered a similar fate and were outlawed, and, in their place, there appeared a strange symbol: The “Five Pointed Star”.

In Soviet elementary schools, under the Communist regime, pupils received a little “five pointed red Star”, in whose center stood the image of six year-old Lenin. It was the “Lenin child” watching over the little “comrade”, a symbol that, in Soviet pedagogy, was to replace religious images. The “five pointed red Star” thus emerged as the symbol of the “new Communist religion”; a “religion” hinged upon the hatred to God, and thus to man, and the alleged aspiration of shaping up the “new man”, edifying a new “Temple”.

The “five pointed red Star” thus became the “symbol” of what is the most anti-Christian that one could envision and conceive; it became the “symbol” of the systematic war to the bitter end against God, against Christianity and against the Christian Civilization. In fact, Communism was the political re-proposition of the Masonic and Satanic Order of the Illuminati of Bavaria, whose secret program it had adopted, without changing a word, turning it into the “Communist Manifesto” of 1848. The publication of the “Manifesto” was financed by two Illuminati: Clinton Roosevelt and Horace Greely. Marx belonged to the Cologne’s “Apollo” Lodge3. Lenin was initiated to Freemasonry by the “Union de Belleville” Lodge of the Grand Orient of France4. Trotsky entered Freemasonry in 18975. Lunaciarskij belonged to the Grand Orient of France6. Mikhail Gorbachev has been a member of the Masonic “Trilateral Commission” since 19897, and even a member of the Masonic and Satanic “Lucis Trust”8. Igor Gaidar, leader of the “Russian Choice” Party, belongs to the “Cooperation” Lodge9. Edward Shevardnadze, former Soviet Foreign Minister and current President of Georgia, is the head of the Georgian Freemasonry and has been an affiliate, since 1992, of the “Magisterium” Lodge10. Anatoli Ciubas, head of the Yeltsin’s Administration, has been a member of the “Cooperation” Lodge since 199311, and so on and so forth. This “Masonic reality” of Russian Communism was but a carry-over in the Masonic tradition of those that had preceded them. Kerenski was, in fact, the President of all the Russian Lodges, and had been in the “Ursa Minor” Lodge since 191212.

1 Karl Marx, “Manuscripts”.

2 Karl Marx, “Morceaux Choisis”.

3 Hiram, n. 5, 1990, p. 114.

4 Y. Moncomble, “Les Vrais Responsables de la Troisiéme Guerre Mondiale”, Editions Faits et Documents, 1980, p. 86.

5 Platonov, “Bethlehem”, Rodnik Editions, Moscow 1996, p. 376.

6, 7 Idem, p. 360 and p. 427.

8 “Bethlehem”, EIR, 1989, p. 29.

9 Platonov, “cited works”, p. 426.

10 Idem, p. 438.

11 Idem.

12 Idem, p. 354.

“FIVE POINTED STAR”: THE MASONIC “SYMBOL”

The “Flaming Star” “The symbol of Freemasonry”/The “5-pointed star” inside “a square and a compass”.

To Freemasonry, symbology and ritual are “everything”.

The Freemason Augusto Lista wrote: “The Real initiation (…) lies entirely, and I say ENTIRELY, in Masonic symbolism and ritualism”1. Masonic symbolism on the one hand, and iron organization, on the other, are the two pillars upon which the Masonic edifice rests, far more than upon the pseudo-philosophical ravings no one understands and which convince no one”2. Of the myriad of symbols the Freemason one is confronted with when entering the Lodge, one stands out above all the others: it is the symbol of the “Five Pointed Star”, the “Masonic Symbol” par excellence. The dictionary of Masonic symbols elevates it to the station of “Masonic symbol” by antonomasia. In fact, such “Star” is found on the Masonic handkerchiefs, rugs and Lodge paintings, on sketches and representations of the Lodge; it is observed sculpted on monuments, engraved on Masonic jewels and medallions; it appears on the portraits of the initiated, on allegorical Masonic representations; it shows on the emblems of the 2nd, 3d, 4th, 9th, 12th and 24th degree of the Freemasonry’s Scottish Rite; it stands out on the Masonic “aprons” of the “Apprentice” and of the “Master”; it is placed in the central point of the “collar” worn by the Grand Masters; but its highest place is at the summit of the Palace of the Grand Lodge of England (the Freemason’s Hall), located in London’s “Great Queen Street”.

1 Augusto Lista, “The Spiritual Bases of Universal Freemasonry”. Rome Ankh, 1946, p. 22.

2 P. F. Giantulli, “The Essence of Italian Freemasonry: Naturalism”, Pucci Cipriani Editore – Firenze 1973, p. 62

A large number of images have been omitted/not shown by me. Refer the original pdf file to view them.

Once again please refer to pages 39, 40 for the panel showing 5 figures.

THE “FIVE POINTED STAR”: ON THE BRONZE HAND OF PAUL VI

It is the “bronze door” when it was inaugurated. On the “Door of Good”, in panel 12, there appeared the “Second Vatican Ecumenical Council”: four Conciliar Fathers between John XXIII and Paul VI”. However, while John XXIII and the other four conciliar Fathers were sculpted with the face looking forward, Paul VI (the last on the right) was sculpted instead in profile, so as to present, in good showing, his left hand bearing the engraving of the Masonic insignia: the “five-pointed-Star”, or “Masonic Pentalpha”. Shortly after the inauguration of that “new bronze door” of St. Peter’s Basilica, I went to see it. Observing it closely, I immediately noticed that Masonic emblem on the back of Paul VI’s left hand. So I rushed to see a Cardinal, to report the fact. He assured me that he would promptly look after the matter. In fact, when soon afterwards I returned to Rome, just to check on that “bronze door”, I noticed immediately that that Masonic emblem on the back of Paul VI’s left hand had been scraped off: all one could see was the live red of the copper. It was all clear! Having been discovered, those responsible for the fact had seen, first, that the Masonic symbol were erased from the hand, and then – as I myself could see on a subsequent trip to Rome – had panel N. 12 replaced with another – the current one – on which, however, the six previous figures had now become five, as anyone can see. Now, how could anyone explain that a Pope (Paul VI) had his image sculpted onto that “bronze door”, with that Masonic symbol on the back of his hand, well aware that it would remain there as a testimony, down the centuries, and that He, Paul VI, would be judged a “Freemason Pope?” And certainly one cannot say that that work of the sculptor Minguzzi’s had been executed unbeknownst to him and without his approval, since it was him to bless it on the date of his birthday, as it was also published, later, on a “Special Insert” of the “Osservatore Romano”, for his eightieth birthday1, and precisely with that satanic mark on his hand, a “signature”, as it were – and not a common one – of his Pontificate”.

1 Special Insert of the “Osservatore Romano”, Sunday, September 25, 1977, p. XI.

“FIVE POINTED STAR”: “SIGNATURE” OF PAUL VI’s PONTIFICATE

This statement is disquieting, as this “signature” of the “five-pointed Star”, sculpted on the back of Paul VI’s hand, on the original “panel” of St. Peter’s Basilica’s “bronze door”, is perhaps the most disconcerting and reckless act of a tremendous reality that, throughout his Pontificate, kept coming to the surface, to then give shape to a mosaic that lay bare Paul VI’s incredible and unspeakable approach toward Freemasonry. And that, he did following 250 years of renewed “excommunications”, “admonishments”, “punishments”, and after about 200 “documents” of the Magisterium of the Church against Freemasonry, and after 16 Encyclicals and over 590 “convictions” against that sect, branded as “Kingdom of Satan” by Leo XIII in his 1884 Encyclical “Humanum Genus”. Immediately after the publication of that Encyclical, the high initiate Tommaso Ventura, having recognized “Humanum Genus” as the “most celebrated solemn anti-Masonic document”, wrote, «Pope Leo XIII was right on the point; he perceived what Freemasonry was; he uncovered its precise physiognomy; he lay bare its aspirations in unequivocal terms»1.

Now, the Church never did entertain any uncertainties or doubts in Her struggle against Freemasonry; it was only with the advent of Vatican II, and with Paul VI in particular, that the “new approach” reversed the previous position of the Magisterium of the Church, adopting “ecumenical” and “liberal” stances toward Freemasonry up to the point of “looking forward to a peace between the two institutions”. In order to shed some light upon this odd aspect of Paul VI’s personality, we list a few of the many “facts” and “remarks” relating to his person2:

1) A Masonic magazine reads: «The Grand Master Gamberini, on the very day of the announcement of Montini’s election to the Pontificate, said: “Here is our man!”»

2) The “obituary”, or funeral oration, the former Grand Master of Palazzo Giustiniani, Giordano Gamberini, made of Paul VI on the “Rivista Massonica” Magazine3: «To us – it is read – it is the death of HE who made the condemnation of Clement XII and of his successors fall. That is, it is the first time – in the history of modern Freemasonry – that the Head of the greatest Western religion dies not in a state of hostility with the Freemasons». And he concludes: «For the first time in history, the Freemasons can pay respect to the tomb of a Pope, without ambiguities or contradiction»4.

3) In a private letter, written by a Freemason friend of the renowned French writer, Count Lion de Poncins, expert in Masonic issues, the following passage appears, «… With Pius X and Pius XII, we Freemasons could do very little, but, ‘avec Paul VI, nous avons vencu.’ (With Paul VI we won’)».

4) Under his Pontificate, “Masonic laws” were introduced in Italy, such as divorce, abortion, and separation between Church and State. And there was a thorough penetration of Freemasonry even into the ordinary ecclesiastical structures.

5) On November 13, 1964, Paul VI laid down the “Tiara” (the “triregno”) on the altar, definitively renouncing it. A gesture that was the objective of the “French Revolution”. The French Freemason Albert Pike wrote: «The inspirers, the philosophers, and the historical leaders of the French Revolutions had sworn to overthrow the “CROWN” and the “TIARA” on the tomb of Jacques de Molay»5.

6) During his trip to the Holy Land (in 1954) on the Mount of Olives, at Jerusalem, Paul VI embraced the Orthodox Patriarch Athenagoras I, Freemason of the 33d degree. Then, on the eve of the closing of Vatican II, the pair lifted the mutual “excommunications” launched in 1054.

7) On March 23, 1966, he put on the finger of Dr. Ramsey, secular and Freemason, Anglican archbishop of Canterbury, his “new conciliar ring” and then imparted, together with him, the “blessing” to those present.

8) With Paul VI, through Cardinal Bea, the Freemasons managed to obtain, at the Council, the “Decree” on “Religious Freedom”, in order to achieve the so much yearned-for realization of a “universal religion”, then set off with the contracting syncretistically, of the “Ecumenical Movement” of Assisi. And while Paul VI always refused to receive the Catholics of Tradition, he continually welcomed, on the other hand, the members of the Masonic Lodges, such as, for example, those of the High Jewish Freemasonry of the “B’nai-Brith” and those of “L’Alliance Israélite Universelle”, which aims at achieving the union of all religions into one.

9) His identity of views with the “Masonic scheme” can also be observed in the identity of his programs with the Masonic schemes of the UN, and of UNESCO. I would have one read, for example, his encyclical “Populorum Progressio“, in which Paul VI speaks of a “world bank” backed by a “world Government”, which would be ruling thanks to a “synthetic and universal religion”.

10) In his address to the UN of October 4, 1965, Paul VI uttered unusual and astonishing declarations, such as the following: «(…) We presume to say (the UN) is the reflection of the loving and transcendent design of God for the progress of the human family on earth, a reflection in which we see the heavenly message of the Gospel (…)» Before he pronounced his humanist address in front of the General Assembly of the UN, Paul VI had stepped into the “Meditation Room”, the Masonic sanctuary, at the center of which stands “an altar for a faceless God”, which the Secretary General of the UN, Dag Hammarskjöld, had described as an altar to the Universal Religion6.

1 Tommaso Ventura, “Freemasonry on Trial – Its True Origin – Its True Essence”. Atanòr, Roma 1961, p. 113-114.

2 Luigi Villa, “Paul VI… beatified?”, Edizioni Civiltà Brescia 1998, Chapter IV, p. 117-155.

3 “La Rivista Massonica”, n. 5, July 1978, p. 290.

4 “La Rivista Massonica”, ed., p. 290.

5 Albert Pike, “Morals and Dogma”, vol. II, p. 156.

6 Epiphanius, “Freemasonry and Secret Sects: The Occult face of History”, Editrice Ichtys, Rome, p. 429.

Moreover, Paul VI should have known that the UN, at its highest levels, is directed by a Satanic sect, the “Lucifer Trust” (renamed “Lucis Trust“), which is the real spiritual brain of the UN and UNESCO, whose founder had for an objective «to wipe our Christianity from the face of the earth», and «throw out God from the heavens».

11) A head of Freemasonry, Minister of State of the Supreme Council of the Scottish Rite in France, Mr. Marsaudon, in his book: “Ecumenism From the Perspective of a Freemason of Tradition”, speaking of all Pope Montini had done, wrote: «… The Christians should not forget that all avenues (all religions) lead to God, and stay within this brave notion of freedom of thought. One could really speak of a Revolution that from our Masonic Lodges has spread out magnificently, reaching the top of St. Peter’s Basilica».

12) Finally, his “Liturgical Reform” had been foreseen by the Freemason and apostate Roca, in 1883: “The divine cult –Roca wrote – in an Ecumenical Council shall undergo a transformation that will put it in harmony with the state of modern civilization”7. Roca’s plan for the introduction of Christianity into the Masonic “Universal Religion”, provided for:

a) A doctrinal adaptation, which presupposed the equivalence of all cults and religious views;

b) New Dogmas, primarily that of Evolution, which presupposes Gnostic Pantheism and Integral Humanism, for the passage of the mission of the Church from the mystical and sacramental (supernatural) sphere to the political-social (natural) one; c) A rapprochement with Freemasonry;

d) The birth of the “priests of the future”, whom are to involve themselves with the “social” and abandon the “supernatural”. And so on along this line. And thus Freemasonry, with Paul VI, had not only penetrated the grass-root Church, but also the echelon of the Vatican, both with clerics and secular. And that is conceded at the highest levels, too8. It is sufficient to read Chapter IV (“His Opening to Freemasonry”) of our book, “Paul VI… beatified?” to realize this fact.

To conclude: who was, then, Paul VI?

It will suffice to recall that Paul VI had been opposed to Pius XII’s “political religious line” with his own “political secular line”, through which he, “Pro-Secretary of State”, betrayed Pius XII, setting up “secret channels” with Moscow and other Communist Heads of State, forgetful of, or in contempt of what Pius XI had written in his Encyclical “Divini Redemptoris Promissio” (1937) against Communism, clearly branding it as “intrinsically perverted” and as a “tragedy to humanity”.

But now, Paul VI’s “betrayal” stands before the tribunal of History.

7 Pierre Virion, “Mystère d’Iniquité”, ed. Saint-Michel, 1967, p. 21-43.

8 Raimondo Spiazzi, “Cardinal Siri Archbishop of Genoa from 1946 to 1987”, Bologna 1990.

WARNINGS FROM OUR LADY

Our Lady, Mother of God, our Mother and Mother of the Church in recent centuries, has given us warnings on the tremendous crisis that the Church would suffer from the mid-Twentieth Century and beyond. She uses words that are precise and unambiguous, though tragic and terrible in its contents. In her appearance at La Salette, Our Lady was displeased with the conduct of the Ministers of God for their “evil life” for their “love of money, honors and pleasures”, but most especially for their “irreverence and impiety in celebrating the Holy Mysteries”. She already knows the reality of the betrayal of so many ministers of God who, having thrown themselves into the arms of the infamous Sect of Freemasonry, do not worship the true God, but worship only themselves: “Tremble… you who proclaim to worship Jesus Christ, but on the inside, worship only yourself …” She also knows that this betrayal will destroy the Faith in Rome and the Church: “Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist! The Church will be eclipsed”. And She does not ignore the fact that the Beast and his subjects, proclaiming themselves saviors of the world, and shall deceive many, will attempt to rise to the heavens, until they will be thrown forever into the depths of hell!

In her apparitions of Fatima, Our Lady confirmed what she had said at La Salette, and the punishment that will fall on the entire human race “within the second half of the Twentieth Century”; both tell of the “horrible crisis” in which the Catholic Church will plunge. She tells us that Satan will march amidst the rows of Cardinals and Bishops and, in Rome, there will be great changes, that Satan will reign in the highest places and will even infiltrate to the top of the Church! But She also predicts that the rot in Rome will fall and never rise again! But in the meantime, the Church will be obscured and the world deranged by terror, will be taken in by errors made by the partisans of Satan, who for a while, will be able to reign over the world, until God will again be proclaimed and served as before.

There were, however, Apparitions (to Mother Mariana in Quito, from 1582 to 1634) in which the Virgin Mary, invoked under the name of Our Lady of Good Success, explicitly condemns Freemasonry using terms such as “the cursed sect of Freemasonry,” “Satan will reign completely through the Masonic sects,” “the terrible hordes of the Masonic sect” … which leave no doubt about the main cause of the “horrible crisis” facing the Church today, and Her new… Masonic course!

OUR LADY OF GOOD SUCCESS

Since the year 1582, Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres received many apparitions of the Most Blessed Trinity, Jesus and Mary in the Convent of the Immaculate Conception of Quito (Ecuador), until the final apparition which took place on December 8, 1634. In these apparitions, Our Lady, who asked to be invoked under the title of Our Lady of Good Success, and Jesus revealed to Mother Mariana several messages referring to the period of the second half of the Twentieth Century. During this period, the Church would suffer persecution in part by Freemasonry and a horrible notorious internal crisis caused by the betrayal of many ministers of God, who “would join the party of Satan, by becoming members of Masonic Lodges”. Our Lady showed to Mother Mariana the state of devastation of the Church “from the mid-Twentieth Century and beyond” as a punishment from God the Father for the corruption of humanity!

«Shortly after the mid-Twentieth Century, the passions will erupt and there will be a total corruption of customs for Satan will reign almost completely by means of the Masonic sect».

«The Sacrament of Matrimony, which symbolizes the union of Christ with His Church, will be attacked and deeply profaned. Freemasonry, which will then in power, will approve iniquitous laws with the aim of doing away with this Sacrament». «Moreover, in these unhappy times, there will be unbridled lust … Innocence will almost no longer be found in children nor modesty in women. In this supreme moment of need of the Church, that one who should speak will fall silent».

«During this epoch, the Church will find Herself attacked by terrible hordes of the Masonic sect … The vices of impurity, of blasphemy and sacrilege will dominate, in these times of depraved desolation and that one who should speak will fall silent».

«The fury of the devil, in trying to raze the Catholic Church, would be served by Her children who would lose their faith. They would work to oppress the Church, and prevent public devotion for they would have already entered the party of Satan, by becoming members of Masonic Lodges… and the loathsome and pestiferous wild boar of Freemasonry would enter the beautiful and flourishing vineyard of the Church, leaving it in complete ruins and destroyed».

«The Masonic Sect will be so subtle as to penetrate into the heart of families in order to corrupt the children, and the Devil will pride himself in dining upon the exquisite delicacy of the hearts of children».

«Know that the Divine Justice sends terrible punishments on entire nations, not only for the sins of the people, but above all for the sins of Priests and Religious… Deviating from their sublime mission they will deteriorate to the point where that, in the eyes of God, they are the ones to accelerate the severity of punishment».

OUR LADY OF LA SALETTE

On September 19, 1846, on the Mountain of La Salette, Our Lady appeared to Melanie and Maximin and gave them a Message that was later recognized by the Church, but a diabolical plot has continuously and deliberately mutilated and silenced it. In this long message, Our Lady spoke these words:

«The priests, ministers of My Son for their evil life, for their irreverence and their impiety in celebrating the Holy Mysteries, for the love of money, honors and pleasures, the priests have become cesspools of impurity. Yes, the priests ask for their revenge and revenge is suspended over their heads».

«Woe to the Princes of the Church who think only of piling riches, to protect their authority and dominate with pride».

«The Church will be abandoned to great persecutions, that one will be the time of darkness, and the Church will have a horrible crisis…»

«Tremble, earth, and you who proclaim yourselves to worship Jesus Christ, but, on the inside, only worship yourselves, tremble, for God will hand you over to His enemy because the holy places are in the state of corruption…». «ROME WILL LOSE THE FAITH AND BECOME THE SEAT OF THE ANTICHRIST!».

«The Church will be eclipsed…»

«It’s time. The sun is darkening, Faith alone will survive! Now is the time, the abyss is opening. Here is the king of darkness, here is the Beast with his subjects, calling himself the Savior of the world. He will rise proudly into the air to go up to Heaven…»

«Then water and fire will purge the earth and will consume all the works of men’s pride and all will be renewed: God will be served and glorified».

OUR LADY OF FATIMA

On October 13th, 1917, after a series of apparitions, Our Lady appears for the last time to the children of Fatima: Lucia, Jacinta and Francisco. After the advent of the “Miracle of the Sun”, the Mother of God revealed a special Message to Lucy (also known as the “Third Secret of Fatima”) which, among other things she said:

«A great chastisement will fall on the entire human race; not today, not tomorrow, but in the second half of the Twentieth Century».

«No longer does order reign anywhere and Satan will reign over the highest places and directs the course of events. He (Satan) really will succeed in infiltrating to the top of the Church».

«Also for the Church a time of Her greatest trials will come. Cardinals will oppose Cardinals Bishops will oppose Bishops, and Satan will march amid their ranks, and in Rome great changes will occur. What is rotten will fall, and what will falls will never rise again. The Church will be darkened, and the world will be deranged by terror».

«A great war will break out within the second half of the Twentieth Century. Fire and smoke will fall from Heaven… the foam of the oceans will rise up all overturning and sinking. Millions and millions of people will die by the hour and the survivors will envy the dead».

«Death will reign everywhere for the errors, committed by the foolish and by the partisans of Satan, who, then and only then, will reign over the world».

«At last, those who will survive all of these events will once more proclaim God and His Glory and will serve Him like before, when the world was not so corrupted».

Selected images (from the many in the pdf file) of aberrations post-Vatican Council II:

A Mass in honor of
Confucius and St. Thomas, in the Chinese Church of Formosa (“Mondo e Missione, January, 1979).

The Jesuit and dancer Fr. Saju George with the ornaments of an Indian (Hindu) ritual dance (Bharatanatyam)

Confession!/A Capuchin friar, in Calabria (Italy), who chaired the jury for the regional selections of “Miss Italy” 1997

Sr. Tina Bernal, 23, dancing at a Jesuit-concelebrated Mass in a hotel (Le Mesager, May 4, 1968)

A nun displaying her blue jeans/A US priest in a native Red Indian costume

Three nuns (Sister Eucharistia, Sister Grace Marie, Sister Pauline McCornick) dressed as clowns that “minister” during Mass! (The Syracuse Herald American of 09.06.1981)/A bishop on the drums

The “New Mass”: a chair, a table, a cocktail. The bishop of Ivrea (Italy), Luigi Bettazzi, president of Pax Christi International celebrating Mass for students at the entrance of Boarding house of Marie Fidelis School, Euston (London)

There are dozens of other similar photographs in the pdf file

The Apostolate of Our Lady of Good Success

1288 Summit Ave Suite 107 Oconomowoc, WI. 53066 USA

Phone 262-567-0920

B.
Beatification of Paul VI?

– Letter to the Cardinals –

By Dr. Fr. Luigi Villa

C. THE BACKGROUND OF THE AUTHOR FR. LUIGI VILLA AND HIS BOOKS ON POPE PAUL VI ETC.

An Italian priest named Fr. Luigi Villa Th.D. (February 3, 1918-November 18, 2012*) of the diocese of Brescia was blessed by St. Padre Pio, by his own Archbishop Msgr. Giambattista Bosio and by Venerable Pope Pius XII who approved the mandate given by Padre Pio to Fr. Villa to dedicate his entire life to defend the Church from the cancer of Freemasonry and to expose other errors in the highest echelons of the Church.

No condemnation or criticism of Fr. Villa can be located on the Internet either, to the best of my knowledge.

He founded the magazine “Chiesa viva“, Italian for “Living Church”.

One of the Deputy Directors of “Chiesa viva” was the famous German Roman Catholic philosopher Prof. Dietrich von Hildebrand (October 12, 1889 – January 26, 1977), whom Pope Pius XII called “the 20th Century Doctor of the Church”. 

Pope John Paul II also greatly admired the work of von Hildebrand, remarking once to his widow Alice von Hildebrand “Your husband is one of the great ethicists of the twentieth century.”

Pope Benedict XVI has a particular admiration and regard for von Hildebrand, whom he knew as a young priest in Munich. The degree of Pope Benedict’s esteem is expressed in one of his statements about Hildebrand: “When the intellectual history of the Catholic Church in the twentieth century is written, the name of Dietrich von Hildebrand will be most prominent among the figures of our time.”

Dietrich von Hildebrand converted from Judaism to Catholicism in 1914. He authored over two dozen books on issues pertaining to the Catholic Faith.

His wife Dr. Alice von Hildebrand, interviewed below, is also a Catholic philosopher and theologian.

Over the decades of his investigation of the infiltration of both Freemasons and Communists into the hierarchy of the Church, and certain other evils, several attempts were made to assassinate Fr. Luigi Villa.

In his three books, Fr. Luigi Villa revealed the list of high-ranking Freemasons in the Church and at the Vatican – including at the Second Vatican Council — the list including Pope Paul VI, proved that Pope Paul VI was a homosexual, and the fact that Cardinal Giuseppe Siri was chosen by the conclave following the death of Popes John XXIII and Paul VI in 1963 and 1978 respectively but was forced to withdraw because of threats from the Freemasons, and confirmed that Cardinal Luciani who was finally elected and became Pope John Paul I, was murdered 33 days later.

“The ’cause of beatification’ of Pope Paul VI continued to proceed until the year 1997.

Father Luigi Villa was aware of the fact that Cardinal Pietro Palazzini had sent a letter to the Postulator for the ’cause of beatification’ of Paul VI that contained three names of the last homosexual lovers of Paul VI.

When Paul VI … beatified? (Paulo Sesto Beato?) [the present file]
was first published in 1998, the book was sent to every single Italian bishop. None of them acknowledged receipt; none challenged any of Father Villa’s claims. But the book was eventually instrumental in blocking the ‘beatification cause’ of Paul VI.

Fr. Luigi Villa’s December 1999 book (which Dr. Alice von Hildebrand inaccurately refers to as published in the year 2000) Pope Paul VI, a Pope on Trial? (Paolo VI: process a un Papa?), a continuation of the previous book, “Paul VI beatified?” was the answer to the attempt by the Vatican to continue the “cause of beatification” of Paul VI with the visit of Pope John Paul II to Brescia, in 1998.

On January 31, 2003, the 380-page third book of Father Villa: “The ‘New Church’ of Paul VI” was published, and as always sent to the top of the Church and to part of the Italian clergy. The book was devastating and the reaction was … a deadly silence!

It all began when Fr. Luigi Villa was asked in 1956 by St. Padre Pio to dedicate his entire life to defend the Church from the work of Freemasonry. The Bishop of Chieti, the then superior of Fr. Luigi Villa, Msgr. Giambattista Bosio, was told by the Papal Secretary of State, Cardinal Domenico Tardini that Pope Pius XII had approved the mandate given by Padre Pio to Fr. Villa, but with two conditions: Father Luigi had to have a degree in dogmatic theology, and that he had to be placed under the direction of Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, Prefect of the Holy Office, Cardinal Pietro Parente, and Cardinal Pietro Palazzini.

Seven years later, “In the second half of 1963, Father Villa had his second meeting with Padre Pio. As soon as he saw him, Padre Pio said: «I have been waiting for you for a long time!» …Padre Pio embraced Father Villa and said: «Courage, courage, courage! for the Church is already invaded by Freemasonry,» adding: «Freemasonry has already reached the Pope’s (Paul VI’s!) slippers.»”

In December, 2008, Father Villa received his first award which was the “International Inars Ciociaria Journalist Award,” «… for his very extensive work as a journalist, author of books and pamphlets on theology, asceticism, non-fiction … and for his commitment to defend the Christian roots of Europe and for his protection of truth against forces alien to our civilization.»

In October, 2009, he was awarded the “Cultural Prize of Val Vibrata di Teramo” for being «a journalist, an outstanding writer, an incorruptible editor, Head Publisher and Editor of “Chiesa viva”,» but also «for being an eminent theologian devoting his ‘entire life to defend the Catholic religion and disseminating the historical truth and living according to the Gospel!’»

The credibility of Fr. Luigi Villa is unassailable.

All words and sentences in green, black, blue and red colour emphases are mine –Michael

1. Excerpts from my CRITICIZING VATICAN COUNCIL II-IS IT HERESY?

The interview continued:

AVH: In this book, he relates something that no ecclesiastical authority has refuted or asked to be retracted – even though he names particular personalities in regard to the incident. It pertains to the rift between Pope Pius XII and the then Bishop Montini (the future Paul VI) who was his Undersecretary of State. Pius XII, conscious of the threat of Communism, which in the aftermath of World War II was dominating nearly half of Europe, had prohibited the Vatican staff from dealing with Moscow. To his dismay, he was informed one day through the Bishop of Uppsala (Sweden) that his strict order had been contravened. The Pope resisted giving credence to this rumor until he was given incontrovertible evidence that Montini had been corresponding with various Soviet agencies. Meanwhile, Pope Pius XII (as had Pius XI) had been sending priests clandestinely into Russia to give comfort to Catholics behind the Iron Curtain. Every one of them had been systematically arrested, tortured, and either executed or sent to the gulag. Eventually a Vatican mole was discovered: Alighiero Tondi, S.J., who was a close advisor to Montini. Tondi was an agent working for Stalin whose mission was to keep Moscow informed about initiatives such as the sending of priests into the Soviet Union.

Add to this Pope Paul’s treatment of Cardinal Mindszenty. Against his will, Mindszenty was ordered by the Vatican to leave Budapest. As most everyone knows, he had escaped the Communists and sought refuge in the American embassy compound. The Pope had given him his solemn promise that he would remain primate of Hungary as long as he lived. When the Cardinal (who had been tortured by the Communists) arrived in Rome, Paul VI embraced him warmly, but then sent him into exile in Vienna. Shortly afterwards, this holy prelate was informed that he had been demoted, and had been replaced by someone more acceptable to the Hungarian Communist government. More puzzling, and tragically sad, is the fact that when Mindszenty died, no Church representative was present at his burial.

Another of Don Villa’s illustrations of infiltration is one related to him by Cardinal Gagnon. Paul VI had asked Gagnon to head an investigation concerning the infiltration of the Church by powerful enemies. Cardinal Gagnon (at that time an Archbishop) accepted this unpleasant task, and compiled a long dossier, rich in worrisome facts. When the work was completed, he requested an audience with Pope Paul in order to deliver personally the manuscript to the Pontiff. This request for a meeting was denied. The Pope sent word that the document should be placed in the offices of the Congregation for the Clergy, specifically in a safe with a double lock. This was done, but the very next day the safe deposit box was broken and the manuscript mysteriously disappeared. The usual policy of the Vatican is to make sure that news of such incidents never sees the light of day. Nevertheless, this theft was reported even in L’Osservatore Romano (perhaps under pressure because it had been reported in the secular press). Cardinal Gagnon, of course, had a copy, and once again asked the Pope for a private audience. Once again his request was denied. He then decided to leave Rome and return to his homeland in Canada. Later, he was called back to Rome by Pope John Paul II and made a cardinal. Continued below.

**Fr. Luigi Villa’s December 1999 book (which Dr. Alice von Hildebrand refers to as published in the year 2000) “Pope Paul VI, a Pope on Trial?” (Paolo VI: process a un Papa?), a continuation of the previous book, “Paul VI beatified?” was the answer to the attempt by the Vatican to continue the “cause of beatification” of Paul VI with the visit of Pope John Paul II in Brescia, in 1998.

Mumbai’s Association of Concerned Catholics’ MumbaiLaity blog, on November 21, 2012

The interview continued:

TLM: Why did Don Villa write these works singling out Paul VI for criticism?

AVH:
Don Villa reluctantly decided to publish the books to which I have alluded. But when several bishops pushed for the beatification of Paul VI, this priest perceived it as a clarion call to print the information he had gathered through the years. In so doing, he was following the guidelines of a Roman Congregation, informing the faithful that it was their duty as members of the Church to relay to the Congregation any information that might militate against the candidate’s qualifications for beatification.

Considering the tumultuous pontificate of Paul VI, and the confusing signals he was giving, e.g.: speaking about the “smoke of Satan that had entered the Church,” yet refusing to condemn heresies officially; his promulgation of Humanae Vitae (the glory of his pontificate), yet his careful avoidance of proclaiming it ex cathedra; delivering his Credo of the People of God in Piazza San Pietro in 1968, and once again failing to declare it binding on all Catholics; disobeying the strict orders of Pius XII to have no contact with Moscow, and appeasing the Hungarian Communist government by reneging on the solemn promise he had made to Cardinal Mindszenty; his treatment of holy Cardinal Slipyj, who had spent seventeen years in a Gulag, only to be made a virtual prisoner in the Vatican by Paul VI; and finally asking Archbishop Gagnon to investigate possible infiltration in the Vatican, only to refuse him an audience when his work was completed –
all these speak strongly against the beatification of Paolo VI, dubbed in Rome, “Paolo Sesto, Mesto” (Paul VI, the sad one).

That the duty to publish this depressing information was onerous and cost Don Villa great sorrow cannot be doubted. Any Catholic rejoices when he can look up to a Pope with boundless veneration. But Catholics also know that even though Christ never promised He would give us perfect leaders, He did promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail. Let us not forget that even though the Church has had some very bad popes, and some mediocre ones, she has been blessed with many great popes. Eighty of them have been canonized and several have been beatified. This is a success story that does not bear parallel in the secular world.

God alone is the judge of Paul VI. But it cannot be denied that his pontificate was a very complex and tragic one. It was under him that, in the course of fifteen years, more changes were introduced in the Church than in all preceding centuries combined.

What is worrisome is that when we read the testimony of ex-Communists like Bella Dodd, and study Freemasonic documents (dating from the nineteenth century, and usually penned by fallen-away priests like Paul Roca), we can see that, to a large extent, their agenda has been carried out: the exodus of priests and nuns after Vatican II, dissenting theologians not censured, feminism, the pressure put on Rome to abolish priestly celibacy, immorality in the clergy, blasphemous liturgies (see the article by David Hart in First Things, April 2001, “The Future of the Papacy”), the radical changes that have been introduced into the sacred liturgy (see Cardinal Ratzinger’s book Milestones, pp. 126 and 148, Ignatius Press), and a misleading ecumenism. Only a blind person could deny that many of the Enemy’s plans have been perfectly carried out.

One should not forget that the world was shocked at what Hitler did. People like my husband, however, actually read what he had said in Mein Kampf. The plan was there. The world simply chose not to believe it.

But grave as the situation is, no committed Catholic can forget that Christ has promised that He will remain with His Church to the very end of the world. We should meditate on the scene related in the Gospel when the apostles’ boat was battered by a fierce storm. Christ was sleeping! His terrified followers woke Him up: He said one word, and there was a great calm. “O ye of little faith!” The end of the interview

2. Excerpts from my FR LUIGI VILLA-A TWENTIETH CENTURY PROPHET

Padre Pio and Chiesa Viva

APOSTOLICAE CURAE
ON THE NULLITY OF ANGLICAN ORDERS LEO XIII DECEMBER 7, 1965