Monday, March 31, 2014

"Then they threw the statues of Christ down...."

The review Counterpunch has reproduced an excerpt from Alison Weir's excellent book, Against Our Better Judgment, which details the US foreign policy about-face with respect to the land of Palestine, and the misery and hatred that has followed from it.

It is hard reading....hard, in the sense of "tragic".  It tells the story of how America went from being one of the most admired nations on the earth to one of the most hated.

As the old saying goes, our children and grandchildren will be paying the price of this folly in blood and treasure for decades yet to come.

One of the less graphic photos of what Palestinians experience under the occupation.  I don't know whether the child here is Muslim or Christian.  All I do know is that he is dead.

Saturday, March 29, 2014


Who said the Satanic was dead?

by Anthony Fraser

(This article has been posted on )

A few decades ago during the swinging sixties and their aftermath, the only folks opposed to the display of pornography on print or screen were, for the most part, Christians. But because they were Christians their objections were seldom if ever taken seriously. In the era of liberalisation of abortion and theatre and screen censorship heralded in the UK by Roy Jenkins, those opposed to pornography, soft or hardcore, were regarded as prudes.

It only became respectable to be opposed to pornography when it ceased to become a sin, and became identified as an instrument to advance the class war introduced between men and women by the women’s liberation movement. It is now perfectly respectable to be opposed to pornography because pornography is sexist (unless of course the women cite some human right to be pornographic). To have porn removed from the shelves in one’s supermarket, it is much more productive to suggest that it is sexist than to suggest it offends God, women or even men. There has of course always been an unwritten code in so-called polite society that children should not be exposed to pornography but the boundaries there have now changed with the internet and social media, so much so that our leaders propose to introduce children to pornography so as to teach them how to deal with it.

Catholics (i.e. those who accept the moral teaching of the Church) have always been opposed to pornography and prostitution and, in the past one might have willingly supported those who were similarly opposed, even were they opposed for the wrong reasons. Not so with the most recent development in the class war between men and women, Femen, whose bare-breasted amazons both oppose and practise pornography at the same time. It is Femen that is mostly responsible for a recent series of blasphemous and obscene attacks on Churches and churchmen throughout Europe and elsewhere.

There is no doubt whatsoever that Femen is a socialist, atheistic and satanic movement....

Read the rest of the article in pdf form here.

Thursday, March 27, 2014


...others call it something else.

When the Popes of the past had to deal with murderers, footpads and persecutors of the Church they did it a little differently.

And then there is the "walk to Canossa", something our recent Popes seem to have forgotten:

Diplomacy is one thing but adherence to the words of Our Lord is another.

Saturday, March 22, 2014


Archbishop Goodier

It is with great pleasure that we present to you an essay written many decades ago by Archbishop Alban Goodier (1869-1939), whose always edifying thoughts continue to apply a balm to troubled souls, my own included. (This writer's Lenten reading would not be complete without Archbishop Goodier's superb Passion and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ.)

With thanks to The Catholic Truth Society

By Archbishop Alban Goodier, S.J.
[CATHOLIC TRUTH SOCIETY of London No. C240a (1949).]

1. Introduction.
No one who has once realised what it is to be a Catholic can feel anything but sadness for one who has lost the Catholic faith, who once was a Catholic and is now a Catholic no more, no matter what may have been the reason.
It is sad enough to know so many who, through no fault of their own, have not the Catholic faith; whose forefathers lost it for them, and deprived them of their inheritance; who do not know, and have never known, all that it means.
But one who has once known it and has lost it, who has been argued or cajoled out of it, whose life has led him to drop it, who has been careless and let it go, who has surrendered it for something else, — those who know and love such a one, know also that he has lost, thrown away, something for which nothing else can compensate, something more dear than life itself.
Let, then, such a one not be surprised if those who love him are troubled and sad about him; they cannot help it. They long to give him back what he has lost; they spare no pains that he may be as he was before; they look on that reward as worth all the labour and suffering it may entail.
2. The Catholic no more.
Who are they, and how has it all come about?
First, there are the children:
who have never learnt to appreciate the value or beauty of their inheritance;
or whose parents have set them a sorry example and so spoilt them;
or who have learnt their religion as a schoolroom lesson only and it has withered;
or who have never seen that it mattered much one way or the other.
Second, there are young boys and girls:
who have been deluded by the prospect of a happy and free life before them;
or who have lived among godless companions, and through shame, through human respect, through banter, through a little coaxing, through temptation, perhaps through sin, have become as they;
or who have been carried away by their surroundings, and the faith of their childhood has been ignored or forgotten, and finally rejected.
Third, there are young men and women:
whose study and reading, it may be, in the days when they were not yet mature, nor able to form a proper judgment, has led them to wonder, to doubt, at last to be dissatisfied and turn away;
or who have come under some influence stronger than themselves, and they have surrendered;
some unbelieving teacher or friend, whose arguments they could not answer;
some man or woman whom they have loved, and who has made them sacrifice their faith for that love;
some companion who has led them on, till they have lost the reality for the shadow;
or who have found the practice of the faith a hindrance to their ambition in life; to promotion, to association with those who would help them, to the use of such means as their faith will not allow.
Fourth, there are the grown-ups:
who are married, and who find the laws of their faith concerning married life a burden;
or who, having once, slipped away, or having been away so long, are unable to bring themselves back, and prefer to remain where they are;
or who have been antagonised by some opposition, by some scandal, by some regulation, which they have resented.
Fifth, and last, among all these classes, among young and old, there are those:
whom, in a proud and passionate moment, self-will has mastered, and they have said: “I will not serve”;
or whom this world with its false fascination has mastered, and they have said: “I will have here my ‘reward’, yes”;
or whom sin and passion have conquered, and they hardened conscience and said: “I will be free, I will have my own way, I will do my own pleasure.”
3. The Defence.
Once the step has been taken, it is easy to find reasons to defend it, but the reasons given are seldom those which have brought it about; to say, for instance,
that to have any religion, or not to have it, makes very little difference in practice;
that one knows many who have no religion, yet are far better than many who have;
that one knows many religious people who are among the most uncharitable, the most unscrupulous, even the most wicked, of all their acquaintance.
It is easy, again, to tell oneself,
that if one has lost the faith the fault has not been one’s own;
or that one has got on very well without it, and therefore it cannot be necessary;
or that one does not see why one should have to keep all these rules and regulations, while others do not and yet are quite sufficiently good.
It is easy to say,
that religion is all very well for good people, or for those who live in good and Catholic surroundings, or for those who have strong and independent characters; but as for them, they are just ordinary, they must conform to those with whom they live, they must be like those amongst whom, after all, God has placed them;
that there are much better men than their priests, more educated, more learned, more scientific, deeper thinkers, et cetera,
who have no use for religion, who say it is not necessary; that it is mostly superstition, which the present generation has outgrown; that it is a bondage, a hindrance to liberty and progress;
that God cannot have made life practically impossible; by giving us passions which we cannot conquer yet may not indulge; by putting us in intolerable positions unless we disobey His laws; by making it so hard to serve Him under the conditions in which we have been placed.
It is easy, finally, to be defiant and say,
that one’s religion is one’s own affair, and one is not going to be dictated to by anybody;
that all that is said about the next world, eternal punishment and eternal reward, may or may not be true, and one will run the risk;
that God, if He is what Catholics say He is, is forgiving and merciful, and will show mercy to one who does not know any better;
that at any rate there is plenty of time, and one can think about these things later; meanwhile one has one’s own life to live, and must get out of it as much as one can.
4. The Misjudgment.
Such as these are the arguments, by which those who were once Catholics and are Catholics no more, will, if they ask themselves, usually defend their having given up. Of course, there are some who never think at all about it, but it may be doubted whether their number is great. They have just lapsed and there they are, until someone or something wakes them up to what they have lost. Usually these find it easier to come back, from the simple fact that they have never really gone away; their minds have never been warped.
There are others, at the opposite extreme, who positively refuse to think about it; right or wrong, they have made up their minds to remain as they are and will not change. These are hardest to win back; obstinacy is hard to overcome, and obstinacy leads to hatred. Those who crucified Our Lord were of this kind; the Pharisees made up their minds to refuse Him, nothing would convince them, they went on to the grossest cruelty and injustice, all the more because they knew in their hearts that they were wrong. And yet even for such as these Jesus prayed:
“Father, forgive them, for they do not realise what they do!”
But setting these two extremes aside, is there anything behind the arguments here used?
First of all, it is clear that those who speak like this, and would gladly believe what they say, have no idea of what it is they have thrown aside, which is so manifest to us. Their faith is certainly no longer for them, what once, perhaps, it was, “the treasure of great price,” worth the sacrifice of everything else in the world.
They do not see that even in this life it is more valuable than anything else:
that it gives them principles, and standards, and guidance, as to what is right and what is wrong, as to what is for the best and what is not, as to true happiness and false, which no other guidance can give them;
that it gives them the means to making the best of themselves and their lives, the means to their own perfection, above every other guide;
that it brings security, contentment, peace of mind, no matter what may be the trouble one may have to face.
They do not see:
that to be what God wants them to be is a better and nobler thing than to be what man wants them to be, or even than what they want to be themselves;
that the love of God is better than the love of man, and that to do a thing for the love of God is better than to do it for the love of man, still more than to do it for their own satisfaction;
that the practice of the faith is not a matter of obeying rules and regulations; it is obeying the dictates of One,
who loves us with an everlasting love, who would have us love Him in return, who has nothing at heart but our good, who knows, with infinite knowledge and wisdom, what is good for us;
who binds us to Himself by His laws: and these laws are bound up in this: “You shall love!”
who has said: “If you love me, keep my commandments”;
who has said: “If any man love me he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him.”
They do not see,
that freedom does not mean, and never could mean, doing exactly as we like;
that freedom of this kind, freedom unrestrained, is licence; and licence in the end is self-degradation, and disillusionment, and misery, and ruin;
that all true freedom requires the observance of some law, and that all law requires a sanction;
that God is indeed infinitely merciful, but also He is infinitely just; infinitely loving, but also infinitely true;
that to disobey God, to set Him aside, to make Him of no account, is deliberately to reject His mercy, as well as to challenge His justice; to insult His love, as well as to defy His truth.
But surely they see, for it is only common sense, it is the lesson of experience, it is written on the lives of hundreds of so-called successful people,
that nothing in this world can really satisfy a man, however much he may try, however much he may pretend to himself that he is content;
that the heart of man always longs for something more, and only by forcing it to be content can it be silenced;
that it will never be satisfied till it comes to God. This is what Saint Augustine discovered, after years of searching, of pleasure, of success: “You have made us, O Lord, for Yourself, and our hearts shall find no rest till they rest in You!”
This is true of any thinking man; how much more of any man who believes wholly in God! Of any man who has faith, or who has once had it and thrown it away! For once one has seen, it can never again be as if one had not seen; a man who has known light and has gone blind is more to be pitied than one who has been born sightless. Such a man says:
That his present condition does not trouble him but is it not because he thinks only of the present, and he will not let himself think too far?
That his conscience does not worry him; but is not that because he will not let it speak? Because he is determined that it shall not be roused?
5. An Example.
How many there are who envy Catholics their faith, who see that they have what they themselves have not, and would give anything to gain it!

It was on the battlefield; some officers were sitting round a fire in a tent after dark. There was to be a big engagement next day, and they knew very well that some at least among them would not be alive the night following. One of them, as he smoked his cigarette, carelessly asked the question: “What then?” There was a pause; one broke it.
“I don’t know. I have been brought up with no religion. I must die as I have lived. I must take my chance.”
Another spoke. He said he believed in God, but did not know what else. If he were to die, he trusted all would go well.
A third was asked what he had to say. “I was brought up a Roman Catholic, but I have given that up long ago.”
Immediately the first who had spoken stood up, and said with indignation:
“Then if there is a hell you deserve to go there. If I had been brought up with any faith at all, I would never have thrown it away.”
He strode out of the tent. Presently the ex-Catholic followed him. He knew very well what his companions were thinking of him, and he could endure it no longer. Before an hour was over, he was in the chaplain’s hut, and made his peace with God. The next day both of those officers were killed.
So mercifully does God deal with those who will hear His voice; He will use the strangest means to win them back.
6. Remonstrance.
There are some who are hard, and whom nothing will bend. To speak to them about the surrender they have made merely irritates them.
For these one can only wait and pray; some day, please God, they will know. If the faith has once been there, with prayer it can be re-awakened, above all if they will pray themselves.
But there are others, by far the majority, who know very well what they have lost, however much they try to make the best of it. For these we are most sorry; deep within they are the most unhappy people in the world.
They know it, and yet they remain where they are. They say:
“I cannot change now.
“I have gone too far.
“I cannot draw back.
“I cannot get myself free.
“I cannot do without these things, as Saint Augustine said to himself when he awoke and tried to put himself right.
“I cannot hope to do better.
“I have made my choice and must abide by it.
“I cannot face the ordeal.
“Confession is impossible.
“To change before others is impossible: what will they say?
“To revive the old practice of the faith is impossible.
“At least I cannot do it now.
“Perhaps I shall do it later.
“At least I can do it at the end.”
Such a one forgets with whom he is dealing. He forgets,
the God who loves with an everlasting love,
who sent His Son into the world that it might be saved through Him,
who was the Friend of sinners,
who laid down His life for sinners,
who said: Come to me all you that labour and are burdened and I will refresh you,
who said: Yet you will not come to me that you may have life,
who prayed for His enemies: Father, forgive them for they know not what they do,
who said to one who repented, though his sign of repentance was no more than an appeal: Amen, I say to you, this day you shall be with Me in paradise.
7. The Further Reason.
For the Catholic that was, and is no more, we have said that we are sad, because he does not realise what he has thrown away.
He has thrown away Jesus Christ, and all that name means:
The friendship of Him who is above all men the greatest, the most lovable, the most inspiring;
The friendship of Him who has given up His all, who has done so much, who has suffered so much, to prove His love;
The friendship of Him whose will is to draw the whole world to Himself and so save it from itself;
The friendship of Him who is the Light of the world, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life;
The friendship of Him in whose name alone this world, and all men in it, can be saved from their own corruption;
The friendship of Him who has asked that men should help Him in the conquest, in the saving of the world;

The friendship of Him who has proved His saving influence in the history of the world since He came;
The friendship of Him who is with the world still, in the world still, saving it in spite of itself;
The friendship of Him who has said: He who is not with me is against me, and he that gathers not with me scatters;
The friendship of Him who has said: Where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them;

The friendship of Him who has said: Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world;
The friendship of Him who has founded His Church, the Catholic Church, that in it the world may come together and be one;

The friendship of Him who abides with us in the Blessed Sacrament, our comrade, our food, our support;
The friendship of Him who alone is worthy of all a man’s love, whose love alone is above every other reward;
The friendship of Him who has asked: Father, I will that where I am they also may be.
8. The Following of Christ.
“I am the light of the world. He that follows me walks not in darkness, but shall have the light of life.”
Indeed, it is true; if we choose to look, we can see it about us every day, in the lives of men, women, and even children, in the lives even of nations.
Faith in Jesus Christ, love of Jesus Christ, standing with Jesus Christ, make other things a trifle: poverty becomes an honour, service a delight, suffering a glory, joy puts on a new significance and meaning, even heroic things become easy and happy.
For the sake of Jesus Christ many give up everything, yet are they rich enough;
For the sake of Jesus Christ many live and labour, and die; yet is their death absorbed in victory;
For the sake of Jesus Christ many devote themselves wholly to the good of others: They live, no not they, but Christ lives in them.
These are the great ones of the world; it is to such as these that we owe almost all the real good this world possesses,
not money, it may be, but love, and selflessness, and sacrifice,
not pleasure, in the passing sense, but peace, and happiness which nothing can destroy;
not power, unless it be the power which consists mainly in service.
These are the saints, the fruit of faith and love; and it is in their company I may live, like to them I may grow, by the same faith and love.
Faith, and love, and following of Jesus Christ, make of a man the best that can be made, and nothing else will do it.
Faith, and love, and following of Jesus Christ, make a man able to help his fellowmen as nothing else can make him.
Faith, and love, and following of Jesus Christ, give a man satisfaction, and joy in life, which nothing in the world can give:
“Peace which the world cannot give, I give unto you.” — “You shall have joy, and your joy no man shall take from you.”
All this is in the Catholic’s possession; the Catholic that was, and is no more, has thrown it away, and for what?
9. An Example.
Some little children in the poorest quarter of one of our great cities had been prepared for their first communion. They were accustomed to live in hard poverty; usually they had no shoes on their feet. For the occasion, a generous benefactor had provided all the little group with shoes and stockings. They came to Mass in their glory; but just before the moment came to go to the altar, one small boy remembered how poor as a child had been the Lord whom he was about to receive. He could not receive Him as he was. He sat down on the bench and took off his new shoes and stockings. The others saw what he was doing and at once understood. They followed his example, they took off their shoes and stockings, and all went together to Communion barefoot.
This is what the love of Jesus Christ will make of us. So can faith and love of Jesus Christ turn sorrow into joy, shame into glory, failure into triumph, bringing down the golden light upon the greatest misery, giving it a meaning and making it worthwhile, when nothing else in the world can do anything.
10. God and Suffering.
But why, if God is good, and if He so loves mankind, does He send to men so much suffering? Why, especially, does He make the innocent suffer in the way they do?
No one knows altogether the inscrutable designs of God; His ways are not our ways. But this we do know, that God does and allows nothing without a purpose; that there is always good, and our good, at the end of everything that He permits; that some day we shall understand, and then we shall thank Him for everything He has permitted us to suffer.
How often do we hear one who has suffered say when it is over that he is glad that he has had to go through it, and would not have it otherwise for anything?
Suffering is the making of a man; for the man who has never suffered anything we are sorry;
Suffering brings out the best that is in him; without suffering there could be no bravery, no heroism, and but little love;
Suffering is the most beautiful thing in the world; our artists and our poets make it their constant theme, our theatres are filled with people who come to see examples of suffering nobly borne;
Suffering teaches us what nothing else can teach us;
Suffering softens us, perfects our character, as can nothing else;
Suffering makes us like to Jesus Christ our Lord;
Suffering lets us go shares with Christ our Lord:
“Making up what is wanting in the sufferings of Christ.”
Suffering proves a man’s love: love likes to be tested: that is why the saints wanted to suffer.
11. An Example.
But not only the saints, unless we include among them countless heroic sufferers of whom men know nothing.
A box-tender of the Catholic Truth Society was tidying her pamphlet display-case at the back of a church, when a shy woman came up and began to talk to her. She said she was not a Catholic, but that she came to the church because of the peace she said she found there. Evidently a very lonely woman, living her life in the midst of the crowds as in a desert. With hesitation, she acknowledged that she suffered much in body; but she had recently heard it said that it was possible to share in the sufferings of Christ, by uniting her pains to His and so suffer with Him. She did not dare believe a thing like that offhand; what did Catholics think about it?
The box-tender explained; how Christ suffered, and died, and rose again; how having once risen ‘He dies now no more’; how He is, yesterday, today, and the same for ever; how He is with us, even to the consummation of the world; how those who will receive Him “live, no not they, but He lives in them”; how His sufferings are our sufferings, how our sufferings are His sufferings, made one, as we are made one with Him; how by our sufferings we continue to win for mankind the favour of God as He won it.
The poor woman listened; she was quite overcome. “I never dreamt of it like that,” she said; “then suffering is a privilege.” After a minute, she added: “But it makes all the difference” and went off happy, saying Providence had brought her there, rejoicing, like the apostles, that she was “accounted worthy to suffer for the sake of Jesus Christ.”

This is what faith, and faith alone, can do for us. Philosophy may explain the pleasures of life, science may multiply its comforts; both alike may try to eliminate suffering, but faith alone can take it in both hands and find in it a joy and a privilege.
12. Conclusion.
This is how the Catholic looks at life:
“What return can I make to the Lord for all He has given to me?”
He has given me myself,
I can give myself back to Him.
He has given me this life,
I can live it for Him.
He has given me His own Son,
I can receive and welcome Him.
He has given me His Son’s life,
I can live with Him and in Him.
He has given me His Son’s death,
I can make that love my standard.
He has given me His own Fatherhood,
I can be a true son.
I can believe in Him.
I can trust Him.
I can be true to Him.
I can be what He wants me to be.
I can do what He wants me to do.
This what my faith means to me:
It is the key to life’
It is the only key to peace;
“Peace which the world cannot give, I give unto you."

Friday, March 21, 2014


Jamie Kirchick, Warrior

The word "slimy" does not even begin to describe this gentleman.  But, lucky him, he has all the right connections.

Both Jewish and homosexual, Mr Kirchick appears to want nothing more than observe the sight of blood running in the streets in Moscow and beyond.  The blood spilt in Kiev was apparently insufficient to satisfy this twisted mind.

But as "gung-ho" as this man is for another world war we are certain he will be the first one to sign up for military duty when his beloved US-Russian war begins.

But maybe he wont.

[Editor's note: regarding the linked article above I will only add that when writers refer to the sadly disturbed man Bradley Manning under his new transvestite incarnation I find it not only insulting but silly.  While I can admire what Mr Manning did in exposing US war crimes against the innocent, I cannot support, unlike some writers who should know better, his personal sins.  Pray for him.]

Tuesday, March 18, 2014


We present the last part of this monumental study by French Catholic intellectual, Arnaud de Lassus again with thanks to Anthony Fraser at APROPOS.

Part One can be read here.

Part Two can be read here.

III    How does the transition from a traditional Catholic to a Jewish conception occur?

We are dealing here with an undertaking having as its object a radical change in Catholic theology regarding the Jews and Judaism (which has as a consequence the rejection of the dogma, ‘Outside the Church there is no Salvation’.  It is a lengthy process which began in the 1950s and which is described in the two preceding documents: the book by Gerhart M. Riegner, Ne jamais désespérer, (Never despair), and the brochure by Michel Laurigan, L’Église et la Synagogue depuis Vatican II (The Church and the Synagogue since Vatican II),

We have outlined below the principal stages then we will indicate what seems to have  been attained and what is in progress.

The principal stages of the process: dates, facts and documents

1946: The Seelisburg Conference in Switzerland brought together around sixty Protestant, Catholic and Jewish experts ( Jules Isaac being (55) one of the last).  It drafted a charter called ‘The ten points of Seelisburg’, the fifth point of which was : ‘To avoid belittling biblical or post-biblical Judaism with the aim of exalting Christianity.’ (56)

One can see here the beginning of the effort to rehabilitate post-biblical Judaism (Mosaic or Talmudic).

1948:     Jules Isaac founded L’amitié judéo-chrétienne (Judeo-Christian Friendship)

13th June 1960:   Jules Isaac gave John XXIII a memo entitled De la nécessite d’une reforme de l’enseignement chrétien a l’égard d’Israël. (‘Regarding the necessity for a reform of Christian teaching about Israel’).

1962-65:  The Conciliar period:  G. M. Riegner also voiced interest in the Second Vatican Council (op. cit., p.361.) ‘I was fascinated (…) At a stroke the Church began to re-examine its structures, its foundations, its action in every field of life.’  Various Jewish associations made themselves heard at Rome, their action being coordinated by G M Riegner (according to his evidence). 

February 1962:   
The delivery to Cardinal Bea (57) of a memorandum emanating from The World Council of Jewish Organisations, setting forth Jewish requests on the occasion of the Second Vatican Council. ‘The fact that for the first time organized Judaism was to address itself to the Catholic Church was in itself very important.’ (G. M. Riegner op. cit., p.366)

3rd September 1964:   A draft of the Conciliar text on ecumenism, making reference to the conversion of the Jews, is published in the New York Herald Tribune leading to a massive protest by the principal Jewish organisations. A new draft is presented to the Council Fathers on 18th September 1964.  All reference to the conversion of Jews is eliminated.

Commentary by G M Riegner:
    This whole story is astounding. It proves that not only persons but also great assemblies are judged in the manner by which one or the other behave towards the Jews’ (op.cit., p.382).

20th November 1964:  The adoption by the Council Fathers of a schema concerning the position and attitude of the Catholic Church towards the Jews and Judaism:
    Under the innocent appearance of ecumenical unity, of Christian charity, of a common spiritual filiation, and of reconciliation of Churches this vote had a very grave import because it amounted to saying that for two thousand years the Church was wrong, that it must make honourable amends and revise entirely its attitude to the Jews.  This vote gave satisfaction to those supporting the tenacious campaigns undertaken in these previous years by the spokesmen of the large international Jewish organisations (the Bnaï Brith, the World Jewish Congress, etc.) with the purpose of ‘addressing and purification of Christian teaching towards Judaism.’ (58)

21st November 1964:   The promulgation of the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, Lumen Gentium.  It stated in paragraph 16:
    Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.  In the first place there is the people to whom the covenants and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh (cf. Rom. 9:4-5).  On account of their fathers, this people remains most dear to God, for God does nor repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues (cf. Rom. II:28-29). (59)

At the beginning of 1965: Leon de Poncins arranged to have the aforesaid brochure, ‘The Jewish problem in terms of the Council’, distributed to all the Council Fathers. He recalled in it the characteristics of Judaism’s struggle against Catholic tradition and the objectives of the campaign being undertaken by the Jewish organisations:
    The condemnation and suppression of all discrimination, racial, religious or national concerning the Jews.

    The modification or the suppression of the liturgical prayers concerning the Jews, those of Good Friday in particular.

    The affirmation that the Jews are not in any way responsible for the death of Christ, the fault of which rests upon the whole of humanity.

    Putting into abeyance or quashing of the gospel passages relating to that crucial episode of the Passion, principally that of St Matthew whom Jules Isaac coldly treats as a liar and forger.

    The confession that the Church bears full responsibility for this latent war which has  persisted for 2000 years between Jews, Christians and the rest of the world.

    The promise that the Church will definitively modify its attitude concerning the Jews in a spirit of humility, contrition and pardon, and finally that it will make every effort to make good the wrong that she has caused by rectifying and purifying its traditional teaching according to the directives of M. Jules Isaac. (60)

28th October 1965: The promulgation of the Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to non-Christian religions, Nostrae aetate. The passage on the Jewish religion (paragraph 4) is far from satisfying all of the preceding requests but constitutes an advance in their spirit. (61)

One cannot find any reference to the traditional teachings of the Church. For the first time in a text of this importance the unfaithful Jews are presented in a positive fashion:  it speaks of ‘mutual friendship and esteem’ of ‘fraternal dialogue’ and there is no mention of conversion. Here is the phrase which denotes this:  ‘The Jews still remain most dear to God because of their fathers, for He does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues. (Cf. Rom. II:28-29)’.  This phrase will subsequently be that which is used most often to justify the continued existence of the Old Covenant.

Moreover, G. M. Riegner posits:

    The affirmation of the Declaration that God does not take back the gifts and the promises that he makes to men is extremely important in theological terms. When one knows Christian and Pauline theology, that is to say what the Christians call the Old Covenant with the Jews is not abolished and remains in force. This is based upon St Paul and his epistle to the Romans in which we note that the Old Covenant remains valid and that the Jews ‘remain very dear to God’ (op. cit., p.417) (62)

25th January 1966:   In an article, ‘How the Jews have changed Catholic thinking’, in  the American review, Look, (with a circulation of 7 million) Joseph Roddy gave a synthesis of the results which appeared to him to have accrued from the Jewish campaign. The article was reproduced in Sel de la Terre No. 34 (Autumn 2000).

20-22 December 1970   There was a meeting at Rome of a Catholic delegation  (composed of representatives of several dicasteries) and a Jewish delegation (representing the International Jewish Committee for Inter-Religious consultations – the IJCIC) under the presidency of Cardinal Willebrands.

The memorandum adopted at the conclusion of this meeting addressed among other things, the elimination of anti-Semitism in religious and historical teaching manuals and an examination of Catholic liturgical texts to avoid all offensive references or representations concerning Judaism.

16th April 1973 The French Episcopal Committee for relations with Judaism distributed a document entitled, ‘Pastoral guidelines designed to bring into operation in France the guidelines of the declaration, “Nostrae aetate” of the Second Vatican Council’.
It states:
    The Old Covenant has not indeed been made obsolete by the New (…)
    The Jewish people are aware of having received, through its particular vocation, a universal mission to the nations. (63)

22nd October 1974   The Creation of The Commission for religious relations between the Catholic Church and Judaism attached to The Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity.
3rd January 1975:    The publication by the latter Commission of guidelines and suggestions for the application of the Conciliar Declaration, Nostrae aetate (para.4). In the chapter concerning dialogue with the Jews it states:

    Dialogue demands respect for the other as he is, above all, respect for his faith and his religious convictions. (64)

And in the chapter, ‘Teaching and Education’:
    The history of Judaism did not end with the destruction of Jerusalem, but rather went on to develop a religious tradition. And although we believe that the importance and meaning of that tradition were deeply affected by the coming of Christ, it is still nonetheless rich in religious values.’

Commentary by G.M. Riegner:

    The guidelines and suggestions for implementing the conciliar declaration, ‘Nostrae aetate’, No IV constitutes the most significant document, in a  sense being the culmination of this period. (…)

    The guidelines reaffirm and extend the teachings of Nostrae aetate. At the same time they set out a programme of action concerning dialogue, the liturgy, teaching and education as well as common social activities (…).

    Personally, I consider that these guidelines contain four fundamental points which go beyond ‘Nostrae aetate’.

Here are the second and fourth of these fundamental points (they are linked to the directives quoted above):
    The second principle is that dialogue demands respect for the other and above all respect for his faith and religious convictions (…)

    The fourth new concept contained in the directives proclaims that the history of Judaism did not end with the destruction of Jerusalem but has continued and has even developed a religious tradition rich in values. In reference to traditional Christian theology this principle is truly revolutionary (…)

    In traditional Christian teaching, the Jews, were represented as the ‘accursed people’ and their dispersion as punishment for the rejection of Christ,  and here all of a sudden, it is said, ‘The Jews are spiritually rich. The history has continued and you will continue to develop your tradition’. This is the recognition of the continued tradition of the Jewish people as a living community throughout  the centuries, with its own mission.  It is a very important forward step in the Christian concept of Judaism (op. cit., p.420-421)

17th November 1980:  The meeting took place between John Paul II and the Jewish community of Mainz. The pope declared:

    The depth and the richness of our common heredity finds itself in particular in friendly dialogue and confident collaboration…

    The first dimension of this dialogue, that is to say the meeting between the people of God of the Old Covenant which God has never revoked (Cf. Rom.II:29) (65) and that of the New Covenant is at the same time a dialogue within our church, and in this way may be said to be between the first and the second part of the Bible.

24th June 1985: The publication by the Commission for religious relations with Judaism of Notes on the correct way to present the Jews and Judaism in preaching and Catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church (Cf. Documentation Catholique No. 1900, 21st July 1985)

Here are two extracts:

    Chapter 1.  Religious Teaching and Judaism, paragraph 3.   

    (…) As the Holy Father said in his speech [of 6th March 1982], after he had again mentioned the ‘common patrimony’ of the Church and Judaism, which is ‘considerable’:  ‘To assess it carefully in itself, but also taking into account the faith and religious life of the Jewish people,  as they are professed and practiced still today, can greatly  help us to  understand better certain aspects of the life of the Church.’ It is a question then of  pastoral concern for a still living reality closely related to the Church. The Holy Father has stated this permanent reality of the Jewish people in a remarkable theological formula, in his allocution to the Jewish community of West Germany at Mainz, on November 17th, 1980: ‘the people of God of the Old Covenant, which has never been revoked.’

    Chapter 1V -  The Jews in the New Testament

    A. The gospels are the outcome of long and complicated editorial work (…)
    Hence it cannot be ruled out that some references which are hostile or less favourable to the Jews have their historical context in conflicts between the nascent Church and the Jewish community.  Certain controversies reflect Christian-Jewish-relations long after the time of Jesus.  To note this is of capital importance if we wish to bring out the meaning of certain Gospel texts for the Christians of today.

Commentary on the last passage by G. M. Riegner :
    Another point invested with extreme importance which explains how the text of the Gospels must be understood. As we know there are numerous passages in the Gospel which are very negative, sometimes even hostile to the Jews. These passages are the origin of numerous anti-Semitic works. Several current books address this problem.

    On this subject the 1985 Vatican Document is firm and courageous. It declares that these texts were not written at the time of Jesus but much later. In addition they must be read in the context of the conflict then taking place between the adepts of the new religion and the Jewish communities. Thus these controversies reflect the conflicting relations between Jews and Christians long after the time of Jesus.  This observation is of paramount importance if one wishes to bring out for the Christians of today the sense of certain Gospel passages. (op. cit., p.428)

One must recognize that the Roman text to which G M Riegner refers, and which he makes say more than it actually does, again calls into question the historicity of the Gospels.

13th April 1986:  Visit of John Paul II to the Roman Synagogue.

On this occasion the Pope had indicated his esteem for the unfaithful Jews who had neither recognized Our Lord nor His Church:

    The Jewish religion is not extrinsic to us, but in a certain sense it is ‘intrinsic’ to our religion. We have therefore relationships with it which we do not have with any other religion. You are our favourite brothers and in a certain sense, we could say our elder brothers’. (66) [Note from Editor, The Eye-Witness:  That the Holy Father could use this expression, "our favorite brothers" to those of the Jewish faith who have rejected Christ, rather than to our closest brothers, the Orthodox, is one of the more damaging statements to come from Christ's Vicar.]

14th June 1987:  An extract from the speech of John Paul II to the representatives of the Jewish community of Poland:

    I think that the nation of Israel today, perhaps more than ever before, finds itself at the centre of attention of the nations of the world. Through it you have become a great voice warning all of humanity, all the nations, all the powers of this world, all systems and every man.  More than anyone you have become this saving warning.  And I think that in this manner you have progressed your particular vocation, you revealed yourselves as still the heirs to that election to which God is faithful. This is your mission in the contemporary world before the peoples, the nations and all humanity. (67)

11th October 1992:
   Publication of The Catechism of the Catholic Church.  It states:

    Paragraph 121: The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.

    Paragraph 840:  And when one considers the future, God’s people of the Old Covenant and the new people of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah.  But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time, and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

12th March 2000:  John Paul II makes an act of repentance at St Peters Rome.

26th March 2000:  On pilgrimage to the Holy Land the Pope himself slid the text of this act of repentance into a crack in the Wailing Wall at Jerusalem.

17th January 2002   The Chief Rabbi of Rome

On the 17th January 2002 a meeting took place in Rome. It was organised by the Diocese of Rome within the framework of a day for Judeo-Christian dialogue.  Cardinal Jorge Maria Mejia and Mgr. Rino Fisichella were present on the Catholic side and Riccardo Di Segni, Chief Rabbi of Rome on the Jewish side.  The Chief Rabbi’s speech during this meeting was published in issue No. 2  (2002) of the Italian monthly Shalom.
Before an audience, for the greater part Catholic, the Rabbi explained the theory on the Noachide laws and the Noachide religion. (68) He recalled the doctrine of the double law (Mosaic and Noachide) and of double salvation about which he made the following declaration:

    Christians must come to admit that the Jews by virtue of their original and irrevocable election, as well as their possession and observance of the Torah, possess a path towards salvation which is their own, a full and special way which has no need of Jesus. (69)

2nd August 2002:  Under the title ‘Reflections on Covenant and Mission’  The American Episcopal Committee for Ecumenical and Inter-religious Affairs and The National Council of Synagogues and Delegates published a common declaration of which the principal editors were William Keeler and Rabbi  Gilbert Rosenthal.  This text (from which we already took a passage below) comprises a preface and two chapters entitled ‘Roman Catholic Reflections’ and ‘Jewish Reflections’ (70)

Here is an extract from the preface:

    The Roman Catholic reflections describe the growing respect for Jewish tradition that has unfolded since the Second Vatican Council. A deepening Catholic appreciation of the eternal covenant between God and the Jewish people, together with a recognition of a divinely-given mission to Jews to witness God’s faithful love, lead to the conclusion that campaigns that target Jews for conversion to Christianity are no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church. (71)

Extract from the Chapter, Roman Catholic Reflections

    ‘Therefore Church believes that Judaism, i.e. the faithful response of the Jewish people to God’s irrevocable covenant is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises’. (72)  (…) Thus, while the Catholic Church regards the saving act of Christ as central to the process of human salvation for all, it also acknowledges that Jews already dwell in a saving covenant with God. (73) (…)  However it now recognizes that the Jews are also called by God to prepare the world for God’s  kingdom. Their witness to the kingdom, which did not originate with the Church’s experience of Christ crucified and raised, must not be curtailed by seeking the conversion of the Jewish people to Christianity. (74)

56 years have passed between the Seelisburg Conference (1946) and the Judeo-Catholic ‘Reflections on Covenant and Mission’  (2002).  One can only be struck by the continuity and efficacy of Jewish action during this period ‘to change Catholic thinking’ as Joseph Roddy said in Look (23rd January 1966).

What seems to have been attained

The following points seem to have been accepted in papal and Episcopal teaching:

a) The Old Covenant  has never been revoked (Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 121); it is therefore still in force.
b) The Jewish people (the people of God of the Old Covenant) is charged by God today as they were before with a particular mission to all peoples of the world. (Cf. the speech by John Paul II, July 1987).
c) It is not necessary to seek the conversion of the Jewish people which possesses its own path to salvation (not through Jesus Christ). This point logically follows from point a.

As was remarked above the Conciliar declaration Nostrae aetate in its sub-chapter on the Jewish religion while regretting that the majority of Jews had not accepted the Gospel does not speak of conversion.  And the document of 2nd August 2002 ‘Reflections on Covenant and Mission’ clearly affirms that one must not seek the conversion of the Jewish people:  this will no longer be ‘theologically acceptable’.

What remains to be attained

Principally all that relates to the Noachide laws.  This is something which has not been attained but concerning which  still remains an issue.  As is demonstrated in the extract from ‘The Jewish Reflections’ from the American Judeo-Catholic Declaration of 13th August 2002 which is reproduced above.

For a Catholic to adhere the Noachide laws would entail renouncing the mysteries of the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation and the Redemption. All weakening in the explanation and affirmation of these mysteries brings Catholics closer to this religion. Examples of such weakening are frequent today particularly regarding the Holy Trinity. (75)


After having recalled the traditional Catholic doctrine on the Jewish people and Jewish religions, and having shown on which  points several Jewish authorities wish this doctrine to be modified, we have described the stages of the process which will ensure transition  from a  Catholic to a Jewish conception.  The Jews would like to make Catholics admit  two essential points:

1)  that the Old Covenant has not been revoked –  this seems to have been attained;
2)  the obligation to practice the Noachide laws –  which is beginning to be presented here and there.

The operation thus far aims to bring about these changes in Catholic theology through the agency of Churchmen themselves.  It is a matter of an aspect of that ‘revolution in tiara and cope’  announced in 1819, by Italian High Masonry known as the Alta Vendita, in its ‘Secret Instructions’ (76)

    One must see where this point (the continued existence of the Old Covenant) which appears to be   accepted, leads to.(77)

On the logical plane:

For Catholics, to admit that the Old Covenant has not been revoked leads to admitting the existence, in parallel, of two religions, both salvific, one rejecting the Divinity of Christ, the other founded upon it. (78) For Jews to admit that the Old Covenant has not been revoked, leads to admitting the existence in parallel of two religions, the Jewish religion for the Jewish people, a priestly people, the Catholic religion reformed on the Hebraic ideal (thus abandoning the three mysteries: the Trinity, the Incarnation and the Redemption) for non-Jews.

On the practical plane:

Believing that the old Covenant endures leads to the belief that one may be saved by by-passing the Mysteries of the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation and the Redemption.  Such an error risks pushing many Catholics to accept the Noachide solution which will soon be proposed to them in a variety of ways.

Another more immediate consequence is that Catholic truth not being intended for the Jews will not be presented to them. But, as Judith Cabaud remarks: ‘True anti-Semitism consists in not speaking the truth to them.’ (79)

To avoid being culpable of such anti-Semitism, to avoid being tempted by the apostasy of the Noachide variety and very simply so as to avoid being obliged to accept a position which is logically untenable, it is absolutely necessary to reject this false idea which proposes that the Old Covenant has not been revoked.

This false idea is easy to explain and those who recognise its falsity have a responsibility to make those around them aware of it.

In conclusion let us end with this beautiful prayer which received an indulgence from both Leo XIII and St Pius X:

    O Bountiful God, Father of Mercy, we pray to Thee through the Immaculate Heart of Mary and through the Intercession of the Patriarchs and the Holy Apostles to look with compassion on the remnant of Israel so that they may know Our only Saviour, Jesus Christ and that they may share in the precious Graces of His Redemption. Lord forgive them for they know not what they do.

Appendix 1

The Current Organisation of the Noachide Movement and Religion

The re-establishment of the Sanhedrin (80)

An attempt to re-establish the Sanhedrin, which had been done away with at the beginning of the 5th century, was effected on the 13th October 2004 at Tiberias.

The new Sanhedrin comprises 71 members, as of old. It was presided over by Rabbi Adin Evan-Israel Steinsalz.  Since its creation, it has engaged in a certain number of activities details of which may be found on the web site:  (81)

During the summer of 2005, the new Sanhedrin sent Rabbi Michael Bar-Ron to the United States to select, from among Noachide communities, (82) members of a management committee for the Noachide religion.  Ten prominent persons were named to that end. It was expected that they would bring themselves to Jerusalem to be ordained by the Sanhedrin.

In an article which appeared in on 29th September 2005, Ezra Halevi explained that the aim of the management committee was to organize the different Noachide communites throughout the world and to make it a single body under the direct authority of the Sanhedrin.

Another aim was defined thus by Rabbi Bar-Ron and quoted by Ezra Halevi:
    To transform the Noachide movement (…) into a powerful international movement which can vie with all religious movements which do not have the pure authentic faith given to humanity by Noah, our father of all, and which, with the help of God, can contribute to their disappearance.
The Enthronement of the Management Committee of the Noachide Religion

Ezra Halevi in another article on  dated 9th January  2006 describes the ceremony of recognition by the Sanhedrin of the Management Committee of the Noachide religion; a ceremony presided over by Rabbi Steinsalz, President of the Sanhedrin and which was held in Jerusalem at the beginning of January 2006.

Rabbi Steinsalz spoke of the role of the Jewish people in bringing the Noachide laws to the world. He explained that this aspect of Judaism had remained moribund during the years, as the Jewish people were preoccupied with remaining alive and keeping the Torah while in exile.

He dealt with the difficulties which the Noachide movement (B’nai Noah) would meet as it developed, ‘When we are speaking in general, almost every human being can more or less accept the laws of Noah, but when we get to particulars we will come to serious points, at which we disagree with Christianity and Islam.’
We can see immediately the difficulties he refers to. The Noachide law on monotheism and the rejection of idolatry (understood in the Jewish sense); that of the Holy Trinity (considered by the Jews as a form of polytheism); that of the Mystery of Redemption (As the Jews do not consider Christ to be  God,  He cannot save us).  These three mysteries are incompatible with the idea that the Jews have of Divine Unity.

Appendix 2

Cardinals Study with Orthodox Students

Such was the headline of an article by Jennifer Siegel in the American, Jewish newspaper Forward on 31st March 2006 from which the following quotation is taken:

When second-year rabbinical student Will Friedman sat down to review a passage of Talmud on Monday, he was greeted by a study partner who wore a scholar’s intent expression and V-neck sweater — along with a clerical collar.

Francis Deniau, archbishop of Montpelier, France, was one of nearly three-dozen Catholic clerics who spent the morning with students of New York’s fledgling, liberal Modern Orthodox rabbinical school, Yeshivat Chovevei Torah. There, for the first time, he found himself poring over one the Talmud’s most commonly studied passages, in the tractate Berakhot, or blessings.

Miss Siegel proceeded to advise us that this visit  was one stop ‘on a three day visit to New York  spearheaded by Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger of Paris and by officials of the World Jewish Congress’.  Accompanying Cardinal Lustiger were Cardinal Peter Erdö of Hungary and Cardinal Jean-Pierre Ricard of France.  In addition to their visit to Chovevei, Miss Siegel informed us that these Catholic clerics:

‘Used the three-day New York trip to tour Jewish sites in Manhattan, pay a visit to the Chabad-Lubavitch headquarters in Brooklyn and drop in on an advanced Talmud class at the beit midrash at Y.U.’s (Yeshiva University) Stern College for Women.’

Jennifer Siegel also makes reference to a remark made by Rabbi Israël Singer, President of the World Jewish Congress.  Alluding to the 20 years of Judeo-Catholic religious dialogue which he said, ‘was like one hand clapping- you couldn’t hear it’, he compared it with the New York meeting stating: ‘This is the most substantive of all these kinds of efforts.’

This was not lost on the journalist who observed: ‘At Chovevei, the room was a sea of head-coverings: the yarmulkes worn by the Jews interspersed with a few flame-red skullcaps worn by Catholic cardinals.’

In her article, Jennifer Siegel gives an account of the third international Judeo-Catholic meeting at New York (27-28th March 2006); a meeting created on the initiative of Cardinal Lustiger [of Paris] and Rabbi Israël Singer, President of The World Jewish Congress, the first two meetings having been held in 2004 and 2005.

No less than 15 French Bishops and Archbishops have gone this year to New York (for the third of these meetings): Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger and Jean-Pierre Ricard, Archbishop of Bordeaux; Mgr Bernard-Nicolas Aubertin, Bishop of Tours, Mgr Olivier de Berranger, Bishop of Saint-Denis, Mgr Francis Deniau, Bishop of Nevers, Mgr Maurice Gardès, Bishop of Auch, Mgr Guy de Kérimel, Coadjutor Bishop of Grenoble, Mgr Robert le Gall, Bishop of Mende, Mgr Jean-Christophe Laglaize, Bishop of Valence, Mgr Jean Legrez, Bishop of Saint-Claude, Mgr Gaston Poulain, Emiritus Bishop of Perigueux, Mgr Michel Santier, Bishop of Lucon, Mgr Louis Sankalé, Bishop of Nice, Mgr Guy Thomazeau, Bishop of Montpellier, Mgr André Vingt-Trois, Archbishop of Paris, Mgr Stanislas Lalanne, Secretary General of the Episcopal Conference.  In addition Cardinal Peter Erdrö, Archbishop of Esztergom-Budapest, and prelates from Spain, Germany, Uruguay and Argentina. (83)

What are we to make of such Judeo-Catholic meetings – which appear to be pilgrimages to the Jewish capital of the USA, New York – are they part of the process of judaisation of Catholicism? One cannot see how they can be seen otherwise.

Arnaud de Lassus


[55] A well known French historian, Jules Isaac was an assimilated Jew. For thirty years, and until the war, his history manual, known under the name of ‘Mallet and Isaac’ was the most popular school book in France. Isaac was not close to Judaism and didn’t care too much about his Jewish roots.  And then came the Shoah, the ‘Catastrophe’ fell upon him, his wife and his daughter were deported. His personal misfortune drove Jules Isaac to write a book, ‘Jesus and Israel’ in which he examined the sources of modern anti-Semitism. The book was written during the period when he was obliged to live clandestinely to escape deportation. Isaac arrived at the conclusion that it was Christian teaching which had furnished the bases of modern anti-Semitism.’  G. M. Riegner, op, cit., p.353.
[56] The text of these ten points was reproduced by Michel Laurigan (op. cit., p.54.
[57] Cardinal Bea was at that time President of The Secretariat for Christian Unity. The negotiations he engaged in with the Jewish authorities were secret and were first brought to light in the article, ‘How the Jews changed Catholic thinking’ in the American review, Look, (25th January 1966) mentioned below.
[58] Leon de Poncins, ‘The Jewish Problem vis a vis the Council, p.5
[59] [Abbott version.]
[60]  Léon de Poncins, op. cit., p.20
[61] The documents given to the Council Fathers by Léon de Poncins and other authors (in particular Maurice Pinay, author of the book, The plot against the Church, had a certain influence in the good sense.
[62] Regarding this see the quotations from Denise Judant which appear below.
[63] The complete text of the Pastoral Directives appears in the aforementioned brochure by Michel Laurigan, p.85.  The references for these quotes may be found on p.89 & 91 of that work.
[64] One finds in this definition the liberal principle of respect for error.
[65]Die erste Dimension dieses Dialogs, nämlich die Begegnung zwischen dem Gottesvolk des von Gott nie gekundigeten Alten Bundes (…)’
[66] John Paul II at the Roman Synagogue, 13th April 1986
[67] This quotation is given with every reservation as it is only to be found in G. M. Riegner’s book and we have no idea of its context.
[68] Regarding this subject see the article by Fr. Ricossa, ‘Straight talking for better comprehension’ in No. 53 (July 2002) of Sodalitum which gives numerous quotations from Rabbi de Segni.
[69] Quoted in No. 53 of Sodalitum
[70] The complete text can be found in the aforesaid brochure by Michel Laurigan, p.58

[72] This initial sentence is a quotation from Cardinal Kasper’s speech to the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee in May 2001.
[72] Note the phrase ‘The Jews already dwell in a saving covenant with God.’  As the Old Covenant is considered as remaining in force and salvific today as yesterday, the Jewish people have no need of Jesus Christ to be saved.
[75] As an example take the suppression in the Novus Ordo of many of the reminders of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity which appear in the Traditional Mass (Cf. AFS No. 177, February 2005,  ‘How can a Parish keep the Traditional Mass’. (p.50-51)
[76] Here is the text from which this expression is taken: ‘You will have stirred up a revolution in Tiara and Cope, marching with Cross and banner – a revolution which  will only need  to be spurred on a little to put the four corners of the world on fire.’ (Taken from the Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita,  see Apropos 22 Elementary Guide to Freemasonry, p. 200.
[77] Cf. Para. 121 of The Catechism of the Catholic Church
[78] Cf. AFS, No. 166 (April 2003) ‘Are there two true religions today?’.
[79] L’Homme Nouveau, 2nd February 2003.
[80] [President Moshe Katsav of Israel at a ceremony marking the dedication of a synagogue in his home in  October 16th 2001 had called for the establishment of a ‘Sanhedrin type body’.]
[81] See in particular the following articles: Sanhedrin launched in Tiberias of 13th October 2004  ( =70349 ), Members of the Re-established Sanhedrin ascend the Temple Mount, 8th December 2004 ((,
Sanhedrin project unveiled with Humility,  3rd November 2005
[82] [i.e. non-Jews who wish to live in conformity with the Noachide laws. Many Noachide communities in the USA have drawn their members from former evangelical Protestants.]

[83] The article ‘United States – Judeo-Catholic meeting at New York DICI No. 133 (8th April 2006). Address: DICI-Presse, Etoile du Matin, 57230 Eguelshardt and

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...