PAUL VI…

BEATIFIED?

By father Doctor LUIGI VILLA

 PAUL VI…
BEATIFIED?
By father Doctor LUIGI VILLA

(First Edition: February 1998 – in italian)

(Second Edition: July 2001 –in
italian)
EDITRICE CIVILTà
Via Galileo Galilei, 121

25123 BRESCIA (ITALY)

 PREFACE
Paul VI was always an enigma to all, as Pope John XXIII did
himself observe. But today, after his death, I believe that can no
longer be said. In the light, in fact, of his numerous writings and
speeches and of his actions, the figure of Paul VI is clear of any
ambiguity. Even if corroborating it is not so easy or simple, he having
been a very complex figure, both when speaking of his preferences,
by way of suggestions and insinuations, and for his abrupt leaps from
idea to idea, and when opting for Tradition, but then presently for
novelty, and all in language often very inaccurate. It will suffice to
read, for example, his Addresses of the General Audiences, to see a
Paul VI prey of an irreducible duality of thought, a permanent
conflict between his thought and that of the Church, which he was
nonetheless to represent.

Since his time at Milan, not a few called him already “ ‘the man of
the utopias,’ an Archbishop in pursuit of illusions, generous
dreams, yes, yet unreal!”… Which brings to mind what Pius X said
of the Chiefs of the Sillon1: “… The exaltation of their sentiments,
the blind goodness of their hearts, their philosophical mysticisms,
mixed … with Illuminism, have carried them toward another
Gospel, in which they thought they saw 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, 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 our intention to question Paul VI’s sincerity,
for “only God probes kidneys and hearts,”3 we nonetheless wish to
report, here, the painful findings of our study upon 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 honestly to taking one’s courage in
both hands to tell the truth in one piece, despite the risk of becoming
unpopular (exactly because, customarily, “veritas odium parit”), 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,
and, therefore, to discussion and possible judgments of 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 present 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 — so deeply rooted in him as to have
disastrously inspired his entire pastoral and magisterium.

We present 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 sinking its root in the Pontificate of Paul VI.

Certainly, writing about him has not been easy on me, as Paul VI
was the Pope at the center of an Ecclesiastical collapse, the most
dreadful the Church has ever witnessed throughout Her history.

In writing about him, therefore, one cannot beat 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 the Second Vatican Council.

That is why, to come to an equitable judgment of the thought of

Paul VI and of his responsibilities, I had to go over again the
official texts of his writings and of 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,” in which, at 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 Council, on October 11, 1962, (an
Address which had been inspired by the then Archbishop of Milan,
Mgr Giovanni Battista Montini), in which he said:
“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.”

Translation: …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

centuries 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 leans not at all upon scientific conquests,
achieved through man’s intellect, for the reason of believing rests
exclusively upon the Authority of Revealing God and that of the
Supreme Magisterium of the Church, which received from Jesus
Christ the mandate to teach it officially and infallibly.

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 – forgetting that only truth revealed
by God is immutable and eternal truth.

Therefore, they made disappear the principle that the investigation

to know the revealed data would be that of knowing the teaching of
modern thought, and no longer that of knowing the original teaching
of the Church.

But this smacks of heresy!

One cannot invent dogma, nor can one reduce it into convenient
cliché, as has been done in these years of upheaval and arrogance,
ignoring that Christ, and only He, is and shall always be the
absolute truth.

How Paul VI should have trembled, for inflicting on the Church of

Christ this horrible catastrophe, by means, and in the name, of an
alleged Ecumenical Council!

How topical is still that whole 2nd Chapter of Epistle 2 of St. Paul
to the Thessalonians: “… 2:7-11. 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.”

This is the reason, the only reason, in the light of the Gospel and of
the Tradition of the Church that we ask the reader to follow through
with the reading.

PROEM
 During the course of the works of the XXXV Assembly of the
Italian Bishops Cardinal Ruini, 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 “Divina Perfectionis
Magister.”

Rome is the diocese of every Pope. Rome, therefore, must act as

official interlocutor with the Congregation for the Causes of the
Saints. And so, Cardinal Ruini, Vicar of the Pope for the city of
Rome, on May 13, 1992, issued an “Edict,” appeared on the diocesan
weekly “Roma Sette” in which, among other things, it is said: “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 reputed
sanctity of the said ‘Servant of God.’”

Therefore, the undersigned – who totally dissents from this

initiative of beatification of Paul VI – after waiting a few more
years before putting forward his “information against the reputed
sanctity” of Paul VI, both for religious attention on the part of the
“high assents” to the introduction of the cause of beatification, and
in order to follow, in advance, a part of its canonical process, in the
hope that at least some would come forward with some “serious
doubts” (at least upon the opportunity of this process), has felt the
duty to move on to the drafting of these “information-pages against
the reputed sanctity,” even because morally urged by two spurs of
John Paul II; one dated 13 May 1993, in his address to the Bishops of
the Italian Episcopal Conference:

“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:

“I do hope the process of beatification of Paul VI may soon be

favorably concluded. We pray that the Lord may grant us to
behold, as soon as possible, this Servant of His elevated to the
honors of the altars”5.

On May 25, 1992 I telephoned Monsignor Nicolino Sarale, at the

Secretariate of State, to ask about Cardinal Ruini’s announcement
of the filing of the cause for the beatification of Paul VI. He told
me that the said announcement 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 believe this true, both for the Monsignor’s profound honesty and
sincerity, and for other sources that I gathered subsequently, 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 he himself was primarily
responsible!).

That said, another justification for my work on Paul VI I find in the

fact that, in any age, historians and theologians have always
judged every Pontificate; hence there can be nothing extraordinary
in passing a judgment on the pontificate of Paul VI.

Moreover, as a son, by natural right, has always the prerogative to

complain 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 God7, through Faith, perhaps to break

away from that which once was taught us, and to replace it with that
which is taught today, in the name of novelty and change?

And is the responsible, accomplisher, collaborator of all that

occurred, during and after 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
alleged truths of this present.

Definitely, one need have lost all love for the Church and for souls
– atop ordinary good sense – to have found the nerve to propose
beatifying Paul VI! This will to sanctify a Pope that openly
refused his duties exceeds the limits of imagination. A Pope, like
any Catholic, 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 align myself with
the devil’s advocate, who in every process of beatification, has the
grave task of scrutinizing life and writings of the candidate, to
unearth all that might oppose his canonization!

Of our 261 Popes only 76 have been canonized.

It also must be known that, within the framework of the procedure

necessary to establish heroic virtues – indispensable preliminary to
beatification and canonization, rather, a sine qua non condition – is
the verification of a certain number of posthumous miracles
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
been done against these canonical requirements have later cleared the
way to some misuses!

Now, even this pushing, unexplainable, for a quick solution of the

process for the beatification of Paul VI, cannot but seem plain
violence to Canon Law in order to rush to a positive solution, even if
undeserved, and even illegal and dishonest, should a conclusion
based exclusively upon the positive depositions in his favor be
reached, although Paul VI had betrayed Pius XII, with whom he
collaborated; although he had led a hazy moral life8; although his
Pontificate had been marred by very grave deviations from the
very “Depositum Fidei” and consequent errors.

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 now engulfing the Church, if not quoting his own
Addresses to the Council and his Sunday texts, or of particular
occasions involving his mandate of 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 applause he
received! How many times had I pondered his “Great Design,”
opposed, however, to the Faith of the Catholic Tradition, to the extent
of recalling to mind 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”9; while the program of Paul VI I saw
as 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, it is transmitted to Us, in a certain sense,
the sense of your peril, which we wish to remedy; it comes to Our
mind, with the consciousness of Our insufficiency, the memory of
the weaknesses of Simon, son of John, called and rendered 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 innovatory, reforming, and perturbing
action. And he could see it for himself, so much so that, in disturbing
terms, on 7 December 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
him who is part of it.”

On June 29, 1972, his judgment, on what was happening in the

Church, was even gloomier:

“Through some cracks the smoke of Satan has entered the temple
of God: there is doubt, uncertainty, problematic, anxiety,
confrontation. One does not trust the Church anymore; one
trusts the first prophet that comes to talk to us from some
newspaper or some social movement, and then rush after him
and ask him if he held the formula of real life. And we fail to
perceive, instead, that we are the masters of life already. Doubt
has entered our conscience, and it has entered through windows
that were supposed to be opened to the light instead …

“Even in the Church this state of uncertainty rules. One thought

that after the Council there would come a clear day for the
history of the Church. A cloudy day came instead, a day of
tempest, gloom, quest, and uncertainty. We preach ecumenism
and drift farther and farther from the others. We attempt to dig
abysses instead of filling them.” “How has all this come about?
We confide you Our thought: there has been the intervention of a
hostile power. His name is the Devil; this mysterious being who is
alluded to even in the letter of St. Peter. So many times, on the
other hand, in the Gospel, on the very lips of Christ, there recurs
the mention of this enemy of man. We believe in something
supernatural (post-correction: ‘preternatural’), come into the
world precisely to disturb, to suffocate anything of the
Ecumenical Council, and to prevent the Church’s explosion into
a hymn of joy for having regained full consciousness of herself.”

Paul VI himself admitted the hand of Satan in the conciliar and

post-conciliar Church!.. But what did he do to save that Church of
Christ from the dominance of Satan, of which he had ascertained the
devastating reality? Nothing. Although he himself had tossed the
barque of Peter into the tempest.

Ought he not, instead, with decisive and vigorous gestures, have

refloated the boat from the banks in which he had mired it? Nay, he
apologized and washed his hands like a new-age Pilate, saying:

“The Pope does not believe he must follow a line other than that
of faith in Jesus Christ, Who holds His Church at heart more
than anyone else. He shall stifle the tempest. How many times has
the Master repeated: ‘Confidite in Deum. Creditis in Deum et in
Me credite!’ The Pope will be the first to execute this command of
the Lord and to abandon himself, without anguish or
inopportune anxieties, to the mysterious play of the invisible but
very certain assistance of Jesus to His Church.”10
 A Pilate-speak indeed! Three years earlier, when he threw
everything up in the air in order to reform, change, and modify, did
he not govern, and impose his ideas, creating all the premises of that
tempest on the Church, and thus relinquishing any right to fold his
arms, to abandon the helm of the boat of Peter, demanding that God
Himself miraculously rescue Paul’s scuttled ship!

And instead, on June 21, 1972, Paul VI went back to repeating

his false doctrine through which he sought to convince (whom?) that
it was God’s job to rescue His Church:

“In some of our personal Notes, we find on this subject: perhaps,

the Lord has called me to this service not because I have any flair
for it, or because I govern and rescue the Church from her
present difficulties, but because I suffer something for the
Church and because it appears clearly that He, and not another,
guides her and saves her.

“We confide this sentiment surely not to make a public, thus

conceited, act of humility, but so that it be given to you, too, to
enjoy of the tranquility that We derive from it, thinking that not
our weak and inexperienced hand is at the helm of the boat of
Peter, but the invisible, and yet strong and loving hand of the
Lord Jesus.”

It is one more false and hypocritical joke, for God had not put him
at the helm of Peter so that he would set the boat adrift with his
Reforms, but so that he would govern it according to Tradition, as
had his Predecessors.

Paul VI should not have asked of God a miracle to save the Church
again, but should instead have humiliated himself, corrected his
own errors, fulfilled the work of salvation demanded by his duty.

He had to quit praising and exalting the Man making himself a

god, and think instead of the billions of men who still lie in the
shadow of death and await the Revelation of the true God, Jesus
Christ, the only one that sanctifies and saves them. Is this not the
first request of Our Father: sanctificetur nomen tuum? And what are,
then, these UN, these UNESCO and all these other International
Institutions if not the work of Satan intent on destroying the
Kingdom of Christ, His Church? Therefore, why that rushing to erect
sand castles, forgetting that “ADVENIAT REGNUM TUUM,” which
is the sole “International” that shall truly last for eternity? And how
could he nurture dreams of international politics when his duty,
willed by his vocation, could not be other than the relentless quest for
the Will of God, on earth as it is in heaven?

Paul VI had not seen what the Earth had become — God having
been ejected by the French Revolution — when governed under
Freedom, Equality, Fraternity, under the false Great Principle of
1789, which had replaced the Law of God, to submit it to the Rights
of Man? Therefore, he was to be the faithful Judge of the Honor of
God and of the Rights of God in order that the Will of God be
respected. Evidently Paul VI had forgotten the command of Jesus:
But seek ye first the Kingdom of God, and His justice; and all
these things shall be added unto you11; Paul VI had forgotten that
the future belongs to God, to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Savior
of the World, and that, at the end of times, “Now shall the prince of
this world be cast out”12, to make room only for the “Church of
God: One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman.

With such a picture before me, how could I not be tempted to ask
whether Paul VI had ever had a true vocation to the priesthood? Even
the words I had read on the book of the “Dialogues with Paul VI” of
Jean Guitton – his greatest friend – had made me reflect a lot:

“I had an intense vocation to live in the world, to be a lay man …

I did not feel cut out for the clerical life that, at times, seemed to
me static, closed, more interested in preserving than promoting,
implying the renunciation of earthly tendencies in the measure of
its condemnation of the world.

“Nonetheless, if one had these feelings, could one join the priesthood
in the Twentieth century? If I feel thus, it means that I am called to
another state, where I will realize myself more harmoniously, for
the common good of the Church.”13

Grave words, which brought to mind those others, also written by

his friend, in “Paul VI Secret”:

“I noticed how his thoughts were of a secular kind. With him, one
was not in the presence of a cleric, but of a layman, promoted,
unexpectedly, to the papacy.”14

Paul VI, then, would have been a layman (not a priest, that is!)

That had upset me. Precisely because the lay Giovanni Battista
Montini had become “Pope” Paul VI.

***

O, may Mary’s Immaculate Heart grant me the grace of being able

to transmit, in these pages, the truth, in order to remain faithful to the
Faith in Jesus Christ, Our Lord, and transmitted by His Church,
sole custodian of the Depositum Fidei!
 Father Doctor Luigi Villa

Chapter I: His “New Religion”

Chapter II: His “Opening to the World”

Chapter III: His “Opening to Modernism”

Chapter IV: His “Opening to Freemasonry”

Chapter V: His “Opening to Universal Democracy”

Chapter VI: His “Tolerance and Complicity”

Chapter VII: His “Opening to Communism”

Chapter VIII: His “Ecumenical Mass”

Appendix 1 The “Oath” On the Day of His Coronation

Appendix 2 “Five-Pointed-Star”: “Signature” of Paul VI’s

Pontificate
 CHAPTER I

HIS “NEW RELIGION”

The pontificate of Paul VI has been, to us, a real catastrophe, for

the reason that it was an authentic revolution that set the Church off
to a 180 degrees about-turn, by means of a Council that supplanted
the “Traditional Church” with a “New Church” that carries us
back to Luther, to the riots of the Synod of Pistoia, which Pius VI
condemned with the Bull “Auctorem Fidei” of 1794.15

I shall attempt to demonstrate my assertions using of preference the

texts of Monsignor Montini, Cardinal Montini, Pope Montini
himself. Although perforce limited in number, the quotations will
nonetheless suffice to expose his real mens as Pastor and Supreme
Priest of the Church of Christ. I shall show what occurred in the
Church during his years of government — an authentic Revolution.

This book of mine, I place at the feet of the Immaculate, entreating

Her blessing over the Author and the readers.

***

The roots of his new ecclesial course can be traced in Immanuel

Kant’s Subjectivism, and in the Naturalism of Jean Jacques
Rousseau, which set in motion the revolt of man against God.
 But we must also evoke the great battle immediately started by the
Popes, since publication of the Encyclical “Mirari Vos” of Gregory
XVI (15 August 183216), up until the time of Vatican II.

All the Popes, therefore, had stood their ground.

The Syllabus of 8 December 186417 listed the errors of

Modernism: Pius IX never stopped fighting against Catholic
Liberalism18; neither did Leo XIII with his encyclicals “Immortale
Dei” and “Libertas Praestantissimum.”19 Pius X exhaustively
analyzed Doctrinal Modernism with the encyclical “Pascendi” of
190720, and condemned Marc Sangnier’s political-religious utopia
with the “Letter on the Sillon” of 25 August 1910. Pius XI
continued this battle, against the new modern heresies, with the
encyclical “Quas Primas” of 11 December 1925, whose doctrine
stands against the current secularization; and subsequently with
“Mortalium Animos” of 6 January 1928, anticipating the
condemnation of contemporary “Ecumenism.” Pius XII – whose
teachings are all against the current subversion in the Church – with
“Mystici Corporis” of 29 June 1943, against the reformed
ecclesiology; with “Divino Afflante Spiritu” of 30 September,
against Biblical modernism; with “Mediator Dei” of 20 November
1947; with “Haurietis Aquas” of 16 May 1956; with “Humani
Generis” of 15 August 1950, against dogmatic reformism, or new
Modernism…

Let us ask why that which the Church had always strongly rejected
and condemned, Vatican II adopted within the doctrinal riverbed?

The answer I find in the opening address of Vatican II of October

11, 1962, drafted by the Archbishop of Milan, Montini21, but
pronounced by John XXIII; an address that opened the doors22 to all
novelties. In fact, the “Message to the World” of 20 October, voted
by acclamation, was a signal of victory of the “new spirit.” Paul VI
would later make of it a dithyrambic address: “Unusual case and yet
an admirable one. One could say that the prophetical charisma of
the Church had suddenly exploded”23.

Then came “Pacem in Terris,” all inspired with the “Declaration

on the Rights of Man”: rights of freedom, of universal peace, in
accordance with Masonic principles, and for these divulged and
promptly exploited worldwide.

It was only the beginning of the dissolution. With Paul VI

subversion would open the cataracts and acquire unprecedented
official legitimacy.

One has only to read the opening and closing Addresses of

Session II Paul VI delivered, brimming with that new spirit, if with
that subtle oscillation of his thought that knew how to reconcile the
extremes —the contradictions — with skilful boldness24.

And so came the “October Revolution” with the ballot of October

30, 1963. But it will be the encyclical “Ecclesiam suam” of August
1964, (already hinted at in his address of September 29, 1963, which
would become the Charter 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 elucidated in a clear
vision, however, of his new Religion, which all his predecessors had
rejected.

And it would be the choice of Reformation, of Optimism, of

Ecumenical Dialogue, of Opening to the World, that will produce,
then, his most dangerous schemes, which he solemnly promulgated
despite not scarce opposition.

But the opposition would be crushed, and subversion prevail.

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 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… 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 Isaiah25; then, the Apocalypse:
‘I am making everything new’26. 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…’27 – 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 leaps 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
qualifying and finding 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”28.
 Why, some new era, this is, which did bring us so many new
aspects, but sorry indeed, unintelligent, destroyers of an entire
Christian Civilization, built in so many centuries of martyrdom and
constructive work, spiritual and social alike!

Unfortunately, for all this the most real and grave responsibilities
must indeed be attributed to him who never should have done it. And
the evidence is incontrovertible for it is derived from official data,
present in all of his opening and continuing papal Addresses, such as
“Ecclesiam suam” of August 1964, in the imminence of the
discussion upon “Lumen gentium,” concluded on 21 November
1965, and with the ENDING of Vatican II, in particular with his
ADDRESS of December 7, 1965, (the most disconcerting address of
all), and with the Constitutions and Conciliar Decrees, strictly
intended.

Now, “scripta manent!” (things written remain) and “QUOD

FACTUM EST, infectum fieri nequit!” (What has been done
cannot be undone.) It is this, therefore, the true identity of a Vatican
II alleged as only pastoral, but filled with ambiguity, reticence, and
surprise attacks, which demonstrate that “Ecclesiam suam,” far from
presenting 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 “Ecclesiam
suam” for a fecund dialogue:

1) Clarity: which should consist in a perfect balance of position

between the two dialoguing parties. (But didn’t Jesus send His
Apostles to Preach? And thus, not to dialogue!). This stance,
therefore, is unheard of in the entire history of the Church, although
She confronted the grave aberrations of paganism, of polytheism, of
Greek philosophy, of sophistry of every kind. And yet the Church
never dreamt of adopting that impossible principle of parity of
dialogue between Herself and non-believers.

2) Meekness: one-sided, however, and excluding Announcement

– always mandatory – and even with the exclusion of threats of
damnation for those who non crediderint! Even this new style of
evangelization is a true betrayal of the Mandate of Christ to the
Apostles: “Euntes docete.” Especially now that every Defense of
the Faith has been dismantled.

3) Trust: with only two human aspects of the dialogue; that is:
trust in the intrinsic virtue of the word (revealed is not specified!),
and trust in the approach of those who welcome it (with no hint at
the supernatural action, nonetheless necessary, of prayer and
Grace).

4) Prudence: which here is completely wanting, precisely because

of those three preceding conditions indicated in “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, that the Church up until 1964 had
wasted time, using radically wrong methods, hence now must reverse
everything She has done and bring Herself up to date, had certainly
been neither polite nor edifying 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 stoning him to death because he had the imprudence
not to remain silent about truths unpalatable to those devils. And so
one should no longer learn from the Apologist Saints who, like St.
Augustine, fought against all the heretics of their time.

In fact, the four points – quoted above – of “Ecclesiam suam”

represent a pastoral position diametrically opposed 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 “Ecclesiam suam!”)... ut fides
vestra non sit in sapientia hominum, sed in virtute Dei.” (“that your
faith be not in the wisdom of men, but in the strength of God.”)

The dialogue of “Ecclesiam suam,” on the contrary, after twenty

centuries of preached (not dialogued!) Christianity, must rest
exclusively upon human means, excluding the fundamental
necessity of the divine Grace in order that the Revealed Word be
fecund. Since Vatican II, no more! The Revealed Word must be
presented, dialogued as a reasoning of man, from man to man. To
Paul VI, in the dialogue must be the authority of the personal
competence and ability of the interlocutor rather than the authority of
GOD REVEALING. This doctrine of “Ecclesiam Suam” is latent in
all the Documents, Decrees, and Constitutions of Vatican II, in which
man is made the center of everything.

Paul VI in person having said it, no one can ever accuse us of

having missed the tenor of that character, unsettling, paradoxical,
and subversive of the Supreme Magisterium of twenty centuries,
which placed Man in the place of God.
 Read also another disquieting confession of Paul VI:

“Nunc vero animadvertere juvat, Ecclesiam per suum magisterium,

quamvis nullum doctrinae caput sententiis dogmaticis extraordinariis
definire voluerit… ad cuius normam homines hodie tenentur (?!)
conscientiam suam, suamque agendi rationem conformare…
.” (Now in fact it delights to heed the Church through her
Magisterium, but however much you will, no chapter of doctrine will
have willed to define by uncommon dogmatic definitions … to the
rule of which men are today held to adapt their conscience and their
reason of acting.) [Who says he must make sense?]

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 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 Italian 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” who, 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, aggravates 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….”

This reference, often recurring in the Conciliar and post-Conciliar

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 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 conferring a wanton license of dunce 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.
Its dwelling at the core of the issues without discerning their bottom
can be seen, for instance, 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 … )

Before those declarations of Paul VI in his Address of 7 December

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 contempt of the whole Supreme Magisterium of the
Dogmatic Tradition of the Church antecedent to Vatican II.
 Therefore, the entire second chapter of St. Paul’s Second Epistle to
the Thessalonians: “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”30, will always be topical.
(The seducers must not be believed … 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 … Therefore God shall
send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That [the wicked] may
be judged …)

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.”
(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)

***

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 O. L. 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 the 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 remain and the religion 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.

This is in radical opposition to 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 anymore32.

Paul VI could not deny openly this dogmatic truth, but he went as
far as to say that love is “due to every man for his quality of man.”33

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.”34

“…To know God, one has to know man.”35

“All these doctrinal riches (of the Council) aim at one and one
thing only: to serve man.” 36

“We too, no more than any other, We have the cult of man.”37
“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!”38

And so forth, as in this other passage 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?”39

Astonishing indeed! Montini, here, preaches a religion wherein

the supernatural and the Revelation are excluded! One could say
that, to him, the religion of tomorrow would no longer be that of
Jesus Christ, 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 man fallen with 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.

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 show, with sad
clearness, that man, rather than God, is the center of his cares…
That all was thought out, judged, and directed in function of man.

A Christianity, Paul VI’s, unpinned from the Cross. Namely:

- a Christ considered a liberator, not so 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 dialogue, not to convert, and
resting upon human rather than supernatural means…

Paul VI has substituted:

- 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

conscience;

- the supremacy of the “Kingdom of God” and of “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 certainly be 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 illustrate 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, who 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!”40

But as soon as 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 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 atheist
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! This very false love for man gave life to “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 inspired to the religion of Man, “center and
crown of the world.”41

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…

“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 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 Council, it
declares itself entirely on the side of man and in his service…”42

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.

We stand before a sort of idolatry of man, such as Christ Himself

denounced when He responded to Satan who was tempting Him:
“Vade retro, Satana! for it is written, Thou shalt worship the
Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.”43

This brings to mind another address of St. Pius X, 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 contemned 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.”44

This truly papal line, however, stands opposite to that liberal Paul
VI, who, at Sidney, 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.”

Paul VI 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.”45 And also:
“For without Me, you can do nothing.”46

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 confront 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 has
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 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”47: “All
things on earth should be related to man as their center and
crown”; words that certainly do not echo “Caritas 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: “Inasmuch as ye have done unto one of the
least of these my brethren, ye have done unto me.”48 By all means!
But what one does to one’s neighbor must 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…”49

He had no business, therefore, in boasting about 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 health.”50

A vision 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”51… and for
this He was always a “sign of contradiction.”

But Paul VI manages to aggravate his own utterance:

“Man… knows atrocious 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 wholly
human. It is the message of MAN to man.”52

Here is the New Gospel, all human, of Paul VI!

Even speaking about his “missionary travels,” he will confess:

“We Ourself 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.”53

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 Pontificate54; 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
integral humanism, in our encyclical ‘Populorum Progressio’.”55

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.”56

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.”57

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.”58

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?” 59

Even this remark of Paul VI 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.”60
 This is the essence of the thought of Paul VI. He believes in the
power of man, even atheist 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 27 January 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 peasants 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.”61

Montinian rambling speeches! As in this other euphoric lyricism,

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…”62.

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.”63
 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”64.

There is, by now, “an osmosis” between the Church and the
world65; and that is, an interpenetration; a reciprocal influence.

And yet, the Apostle St. John had written, instead, “The whole
world lieth in wickedness.”66 And Jesus had said, “He that is not
with Me is against Me.”67

Even Leo XII, 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.”68

But Paul VI, throughout his Pontificate, attempted to reconcile

these two irreconcilables; hence his contradictions, his ambiguities,
precisely on account of his… “Love to the world.”

“We have doubtless 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 the earthly corruption. But it is also certain that We do live
in a different spiritual climate, having being invited, especially by
the recent Council, to bring upon the modern world an optimistic
look for its values, its achievements… The celebrated
Constitution ‘Gaudium et Spes’ is in its whole an encouragement
toward this new spiritual approach.”69

This utterance of Paul VI would seem a clear invitation to

abandon “the severity of the Saints,” the “books of asceticism,” in
favor of this “new spiritual approach,” regarding “with more
optimism the world,” in conclusion: to come to a positive judgment
“upon the earthly corruption.” 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” Institute.70

Cardinal Poupard in His introduction recalled a question Paul VI

was asking himself:

“What conscience has the Church matured about Herself, after

twenty centuries of history and after countless experiences and
studies and treatises?”

And here is Montini’s own brief answer:

“The Church is communion. It is the communion of the Saints.”

“It seems to me – continued Cardinal Poupard – it is in this global

vision of the Church, viewed as mystery of communion, that lies the
specific contribution of Paul VI to the Vatican II Council and to the
elaboration of its “Magna Charta,” the doctrinal Constitution
“Lumen Gentium.” 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 incarnation lasting in time and 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 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…

And so, that “new ecclesiology” of Montini came, as regular

“foreign merchandise,” from France. But now, this was nothing
new in a Montini who, 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 humanim,
and so forth and so on. Authors, that is, who afford us to say that
Montini’s “choices,” from priest to Pope, were always consistent71!

And so to Paul VI, the “ecclesiology of communion” truly was “as

the incarnation lasting in time and 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 before 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.”72

More clear and to the point, on this subject “Church-

Communion,” on this “new ecclesiology,” that is, is Cardinal
Ratzinger, in his “Ratzinger Report,”73 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 authentic

Catholic view of the reality “Church,” without rejecting it
expressly.”

Now, would it be this, therefore, the “original contribution” of

Pope Montini to the Council? A shading off 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 Ratzinger74 – an error that led to the practical negation of
the authentic concept of ‘obedience’, as the concept of an
authority that has her legitimacy 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 in order to part, as far as
possible, from what is ours, so that it may better stand out that
which is His, of the 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.”75

It is precisely what Paul VI failed to do, when he chose instead to

order “new structures,” arbitrary, over his eerie conceptions, which
substituted the very “Constitution” wanted by Jesus and then
clearly expressed in His Gospels.

***

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 pejorative sense, 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”76; hence
the “elements of the world” are like “bondages” keeping man tied
down to sin.77

Now, if the devil is the prince of this world78, the Kingdom of

Jesus Christ cannot be of this world79; rather, Jesus is hated by this
world80. Consequently, like Jesus, even the Christian is not of this
world, for in him dwells the spirit of truth the world cannot receive.81

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 for ever.”82

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 world.83

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”84; “For
whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the
victory that overcometh the world, even our Faith.”85 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.”86 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!”8, while, on the contrary, Paul VI did away with
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.”88

Words, these too, which betray the “mission” of the Church of

Christ, which must place under the yoke of Christ the men of this
world. 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 Christ89; that Christ who had
said: “Whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath,
he cannot be my disciple”90.

Paul VI, instead, goes on to repeat:

“Out 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.”91

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?92

Even at the opening of the IV Session 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 eye over the world shall be one of the fundamental acts of
the Session that is about to begin: once again and above all,
love…”93

Words that sound as the 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.”94

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.”95

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.”96

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…”97

Here, Paul VI says 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.”

Double track, that is. Two irreconcilable approaches. All that is left
to do is to repeat the verdict of Christ: “No man can serve two
masters.”98 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 place 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.’99”100

Here you have a typical example of how one could make wicked
use 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 addressed: “O generation
of vipers… Whitewashed Sepulchers”101. 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 lay, a secular… ‘The Church –
says the Council – recognizes all that is good in the social
dynamism of today.’102”103

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”104, still bear any import today? And what
consequence carry the Words of Jesus, even graver and more
decisive: “For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole
world, and lose his own soul?”105

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!106 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…”107

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 of true is in that contempt
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 (an
euphemism?) optimism of the immediate post-Council.”108

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.”109

Nonetheless, in that “Conversation” at Brescia’s Paul VI Institute,

the continuity of John XXIII’s Pontificate and of that of Paul VI, and
of the opening to the world was insisted upon. 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 drive.”

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” there was to be had confirmation in that other

Convention, promoted by the Marche Region Institute “J. Maritain”
on the theme: “The Road to Vatican II.” In representation of the
Italian Episcopal Conference,” the then Secretary Monsignor Camillo
Ruini attended the Convention. Well, “The thematic – 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 wanted to throw an eye outside the window.”

Monsignor Capovilla, however, saw fit to reveal – for the first

time – to “have seen the face of the Pontiff furrowed with tears,
on the verge of his death, because some were affirming that he
had set in motion a process that would not have been for the good
of the Church”!

A “weeping” which “demonstrates” that Pope Roncalli had not

foreseen the negative effects of his decisions, of his apostolic actions
(!!) made without hearing 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 diviner-counselor, his factious personal
Secretary, monsignor Capovilla, so much so that cardinal Tardini
came to offer his resignation from his post, and cardinal 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 avail.110

Paul VI, however, after “Pacem in Terris,” flung open the doors of
the Council to his “apertura al mondo” (opening to the world). One
has only to read “Gaudium et Spes” to dispel any doubt. His “love to
the world,” his “cult of man,” were but a counter-altar to the
straightforward affirmation of Jesus, “My kingdom is not of this
world.”111

***

It was a real utopia his agitated soul, his ambivalent behavior, his
obsession of reconciling, at any cost, the Church with the modern
world, with modern philosophy, subjectivist and immanentist, and
modern culture, imbued with subjectivism and immanentism, were
nourishing. Surely it wasn’t a guiltless action, for it was a path
already blocked off by the past Magisterium, with Mirari Vos (1832)
of Gregory XVI, with the Syllabus (1864) of Pius IX, with Pascendi
(1907) of St. Pius X, with Humani Generis (1950) of Pius XII,
which firmly condemn all these apertures and, consequently, even
those false “restorations” that suffocated the perennial philosophy,
the Scholastic theology, and the dogmatic Tradition of the
Church.

It is the new theology that has determined the crisis that paralyzes
the life of the Church, as it is permeated – we repeat with Humani
Generis – with “false opinions that threaten to subvert the
foundations of Catholic doctrine.”

It is not easy to fathom his thought, enveloped in a language

oftimes vague and obscure which renders it incomprehensible,
though providing “pictures” of apparent respectability, which conceal
errors and ambiguities.

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 souls is a theme Paul
VI, in his writings and speeches, has nearly forgotten.

“It is the ferment of the Gospel that has aroused and continues
to arouse in man's heart the irresistible requirements of his
dignity.”112

Hence to Paul VI the Gospel seems a mere instrument, almost

the pretext for a sort of world political revolution that must lead to
the Kingdom of Man’s Rights, proclaimed by the French
Revolution.

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 must come to
be the ultimate word.”113

Luckily, that day shall never come. Yet ever since 1789 this trust in
human reason is preached. This human reason has been severed
from its root, God, and placed at the service of the shallows of
human nature. That is why any catastrophe is 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
the material evolution and so demanding for their individual
particularities. This opening is in the spirit of the Church…”114

Pius X, blessed predecessor of Paul VI, on May 27, 1914,

admonishing a group of new cardinals from a certain spirit of
adaptation to the world, instead, had said, “We are, alas, in a time in
which are all too easily accepted certain ideas of reconciliation of
the Faith with the modern spirit; ideas that lead 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 with the Christian doctrine that affirms
“man was born a sinner,” hence, as Jesus says, “None is good, save
one, that is, God.”115

How correct, then, is Paul VI’s “opening to the world,” steadfast

and stubborn to the point of saying that “… It is our duty to favor
the formation of a mind and practice which would best suit the
true moral progress of man and society?”116

And yet, even the Protestant theologian Karl Barth posed himself
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 dim nebulosity of an unconscious
Christianity.”117

Paul VI, however, continued to pursue a mission rather temporal

than spiritual, in order to edify 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.”118

And again:

“The Catholic Church urges all of her sons to undertake,

together with all men of good will of every race and nation, this
peaceful crusade for the well-being of man… in order to establish
a global community, united and brotherly.”119

Words to the wind! And a dream, his progress of humanity,

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
but that offences will come: woe unto him, through whom they
come!”120 And this 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 that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in
my flesh for His body’s sake, which is the Church.”121

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.”122

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?”123 And if that is the case, the Gospel shall
always be the same, regardless of world change. And the doctrine of
Jesus shall be always “A sign which shall be contradicted.”124

But Paul VI continued to believe it possible to merge the pagan

world and Gospel of Jesus Christ. Perhaps he believed that the
influence of Christianity depended upon a reformation in the sense of
the world, even though that will to reform the Church and her
doctrine in a manner that would not injure the sensibilities of the
world, could signify apostasy - 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.”125

And that, even Paul VI should have known, rather than fancying a
Masonic-like humanitarian and social philanthropic organization.
 “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.”126

Hence to Paul VI the Church must no longer focus upon the

evangelization of the peoples for the salvation of 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:

“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.”127

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.”128
 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.”129

But Paul VI’s utopia rested upon his faith in 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…”130

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.”131

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.”132

Here, too, Paul VI forgets what Jesus said: “For without me ye

can do nothing.”133 And yet to him it does not seem to work this
way. In his numerous speeches about peace, a call to a universal
human conscience, or to some principles of natural morals, is
never lacking.

“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.’134”135

Here, too, Paul VI evades the question; he refuses to say whether

or not God is necessary to world peace. On 1 January 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.”136

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 [novus ordo?] Mass.”137

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”138: 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.”139

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 wherefrom 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.”140
 That’s it! True peace comes from the Cult of Man!

“We wish to give our life a sense. Life is worth the sense 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 hard… 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.”141

But if peace is founded on justice, on what is justice founded?

“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.”142

What an illusion! Is the world marching toward its unity, today?

Wars are up, conflicts have intensified, guerrilla warfare is drenching
peoples in blood…

His common denominator that ensures a common way of

thinking and loving, is no longer the Gospel of Christ, “Way,
Truth, and Life,”143 but that civilized conscience that would enforce
the Charter of Man’s Rights.

“…What is our message? What are needed above all are moral
weapons, which give strength and prestige to international law;
the weapon, in the first place, of the observance of pacts.”144

Once again Paul VI gives pre-eminence to human means. Let us go

back to his incredible address of 4 October 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.”145

Every person that had retained a minimal Christian sense, must

have protested and criticized that profession of faith in an Atheist
and Masonic Organization, which Paul VI defined 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.”146

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…147

But there, at the UN, it certainly wasn’t Peter who spoke. For Peter,
authentic Vicar of Christ, would not kneel before the pride of Man,
incarnated in that Masonic Organization that intends to run the world
without God.

Paul VI, however, continued:

“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.”148

It feels like a dream! A Pope, Paul VI, announcing a world without

suffering, without Cross! And that would be nothing less than
“evangelical realism.” The Words of Jesus spring to mind: “Get
thee behind me, Satan:… Thou art an offence unto me: for thou
savorest not the things that are of God.”149
 Words Jesus told Peter himself, as he did not want Him to suffer
the Passion. And comes to mind what 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”150.

Clear and doctrinal words that crush all of the evanescent

sociological follies of Pope Paul VI.
 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 18 November 1907, Pius X added

“the excommunication to those who contradict these documents”
(encyclical “Pascendi” and decree “Lamentabili”). And he was
addressing the Bishops and Superiors General 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 who, 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 “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 author also of the “Corpus Mysticum,” with its dogmatic
relativism, explained that repeatedly.

Vatican II, under such influence, “has avoided, in its main

documents, the use of the term supernatural”151.

Romano Amerio, too, in his “Iota 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 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 Swisse 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 (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., at 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, Daniélou....).

“Some pastoral initiatives (e.g., worker priests) were condemned

and cut short, but were resumed during and after the Council.”
 “Humani Generis” of Pius XII (1950) was practically retracted
by Paul VI, who brought back into the limelight his own theologians,
whom his predecessor had condemned.

With the advent of Paul VI, 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 mention briefly 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, with the Motu Proprio “Sacrorum Antistitum”

(September 1910) had imposed the anti-modernist oath; but Paul
VI abolished it.

- Pius X against ecclesiastics who contested “Lamentabili” and the

encyclical “Pascendi” with the Motu Proprio of 18 November 1907
inflicted excommunication latae sententiae, reserved to the Roman
Pontiff; but Paul VI destroyed it, ruling that he would not hear of
excommunications anymore (Why, then, the excommunication of
Monsignor Lefebvre?).

- In order to confront that synthesis of all heresies, Modernism,

Pius X had reorganized the Holy Office through the Constitution
“Sapienti Consilio” of 29 June 1908; but Paul VI, with grave
insipient counsel, abolished it, stating that of heresies and
widespread disorders, “thank God there are no more within the
Church” (“Ecclesiam suam”) and that “the defense of Faith, now
(?!) is better served by the promotion of Doctrine than by
condemnation” (1965). (Perhaps the promoters of heresies are not
lacking in doctrine, other than in good Faith? Perhaps the Church is
no longer called to the gravest duty of using her coercive power,
which Jesus has bestowed upon her, against the obstinacy of
heretics?)152.

– Pius X, in order to protect 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 of the heretical “Dutch Catechism,” making it the
archetype of all catechisms, more or less bizarre, which then
mushroomed throughout the dioceses of the Church.

And while Pius X had foiled the insidious tactic of the modernists –
who 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 4 September 1977 and Osservatore Romano of 8
September 1977), which defined “Pascendi” as a “revelation” of
modernism, “not altogether historically respectful.” But Paul VI
didn’t stop here! He denigrated 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, in Montini’s heart, all his bitterness and his
well-known typical modernist imprint. 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 a luxurious darnel, 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 18 November 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 conscience obligation 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, Pius X, in order to shield from Modernism, in the

Biblical field, the scholars of Science of the Scriptures, on May 7,
1909 established in Rome the Pontifical Biblical Institute. But
today, unfortunately – and precisely because of Paul VI – this
Institute is a haunt and breeding ground of modernists among the
most corrupting in the Church. It is appropriate to recall that, in 1964,
Paul VI recalled to the Biblical [Institute] the Jesuits Zerwik and
Lyonnet, whom the Holy Office had condemned and expelled.

– Pius X, in order to ensure a formation of the Clergy that would

be doctrinally orthodox, promoted 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
(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 up to modernist principles. And while Pius
X had staunchly condemned inter-confessionalism as it is harmful to
the Faith of Catholics and generates indifferentism, Paul VI, instead,
wanted that scatterbrained modernist “ecumenism” Pius X had
already called a:

“Charity without Faith, quite soft on misbelievers, which opens

up to anyone, unfortunately, the road to eternal ruin.”

But Montini, archbishop at Milan – in 1958 – had said:

“The boundaries of orthodoxy do not coincide with those of

pastoral charity” (?!).
 Was “pastoral,” then, to him, beyond Faith?

Paul VI has always refused to condemn even those theologians who

had gone so far as to deny the divinity of Christ. And it is fact that he
let Bishops attack doctrinal encyclicals without reproach or removal.

- And it is fact that he himself used a style of non-condemnation

even in important and solemn documents, in which he used restrictive
formulas, so as to invalidate any normative character. So did he with
his “Creed”; so also with “Humanae Vitae,” without obligations or
punishments.

- For what possible reason did he demolish, as it were, prior papal

encyclicals 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?153

- 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 culture
broadening, in order that every truth, every dogma, every certainty
might be repudiated; even though in his exhortations, occasionally,
he affected to be recalling to order? Paul VI not only always refused
to condemn, but also prevented any condemnation, placing even
in high offices true and genuine advocates of heresies, such as, for
example, Küng, whom he personally defended154.

- He never condemned the heretic Teilhard de Chardin, whom,

on the contrary, he occasionally cited and subtly praised.

- He let the Holy See be challenged upon the most important points
of the Faith, without reactions on his part.

- He threw away the entire Tradition, with shrewdness,

destruction and “reconstruction” made in stages, introduced, at
first, “ad experimentum,” out of special or personal interest, to be
soon reconfirmed or promulgated.

- He diminished “ministerial Catholic priesthood,”

approximating it to the ministry of Protestant Pastors.

- He let seminarians travel to Taizé, where Protestant and

Calvinist cults are also celebrated; and he continued to welcome their
Chiefs, such as Schutz and Thurian, as if they had been authentic
ministers.

- He allowed many theologians to continue to demolish ministerial

priesthood, less and less distinguished from the “priesthood of the
laity.”155

- He pushed that Reform of the Seminaries, which cries out for

vengeance before Christ the Priest.

- He allowed (nay, he wanted!) that the habit be replaced with

civilian clothing, with all the consequent decay.

- He eliminated the Tonsure, the Ostiariate, the Exorcistate,

and the Subdiaconate (15 September 1972).

- He wanted, categorically wanted, his Replacement of the

Traditional Mass.

- 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, undisturbed, to publicize
that idea.

- He admitted the possibility of accepting married priests.

- He allowed concelebrations of Anglican Pastors at the Vatican.

- He allowed some Protestants to receive the Eucharist.

- He allowed “Communion” distributed into the hands and the

“Holy Species” placed in breadbaskets and even distributed by
girls in miniskirts.

- He let pass and authorize open Communions, that is, that

Protestants could participate in the Communion during Catholic
Mass, and that Catholics could participate in the Protestant Supper.

- 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 are by now come to the
tomtom, at St. Peter’s, as well as rock), and emptied our churches of
all that is sacred, and had the altars turned facing the people (counter
to “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 stirring Center 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.”156

In simple terms, Paul VI’s religion became, as it were, the servant

of the world, since “religion must be renovated”… (12 August
1960), since all religions are equal, serving but the purpose of
fraternizing in the temporal action.

Hence Paul VI allowed the demolition of dogmas, as these were a

hindrance to brotherhood. He allowed the clouding over of the
Sacraments and the weakening of the Commandments, 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 substituted them for

theology.

That is why he spoke, terrorized, of the continuous growth of

world population, seconding 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 and religious Novitiates, gave the Church leftist trade
unionist priests, reduced the message of the Cross into a vile
humanism. He, in fact, promoted the revision and modernization of
all the Constitutions of Religious Orders and Institutes, bringing
about destruction, disorder, anarchy, and chaos.

- He wrecked every Catholic organization: A.C., FUCI, Oratories,

and traditional parish Associations.
 - He abandoned the symbol of Pontifical power, the Tiara
(donated to Milan, then gone lost in the United States).

- He abolished the Pastoral.

- He wore, on his chest, the Ephod of the Hebrew High Priest.

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

- He democratized all the institutions of the Church.

- He spread 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 the Sillon), thus weakening the monarchical power, of
divine right, in the Church.

- He introduced 15 women in the Council, and later on 70 more

in the Vatican offices, 7 of whom in the Holy See’s most delicate
Office, in direct contact with the Pope.

- He always refused to receive groups of seculars and priests that

were faithful to Tradition (thus creating new forms of schism),
whereas he always sent his “Blessings” to all others, non-
traditionalists.

- He always received Freemasons, Communists, Modernists,

protesters and leftists of any kind.

- He received, without reactions, the movie star “Cardinale” 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, necessity of being oneself
and live and interpret the issues of one’s own times.”157

- He received scandalous hippies and beat singers, and pop bands,

in blue jeans, disheveled long 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, chief of terrorism in Angola, etc.

***

All in all, he made a relentless show of his will of breaking with

the Church of Tradition. Even his inconsiderate relegation of
octogenarian Cardinals, forbidding them from entering the
Conclave for the election of the Pope, concealed his mens of
eliminating from the Conclave all those members that would not be
favorable to his own line of revision of his new Church.

He imposed the resignation of 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-freemason figures.

- He abolished many holy days of precept.

- He wrote off the abstinence from meat on Fridays.

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

- He left the doors open to all kinds of protests.

- He issued a Decree for mixed marriages, without mandating the

Catholic Baptism of the sons!

- He attempted to abolish traditional cloistered life, even though he

masked his position with expressions in favor of the same.

- He dispatched cardinal Willebrandt, as his “Legate,” to the

Lutheran Assembly of Evian (September 1970) to sing Luther’s
praises.

- He performed that incredible gesture of throwing himself to his

knees and kissing the feet of Metropolitan 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 is but a caving-
in to the Secular-Masonic-Marxist mind or our times.

- Under his Pontificate, the Vatican accredited the first

ambassadress, Miss Bernardette P. A. Olowo ( under 28 years old).

- He blessed the Pentecostals dancing and howling at St. Peter’s.

- He– still archbishop of Milan – opened up the Secret Archives of

the Curia to the search for documents regarding the “Monaca di
Monza” [Nun of Monza, featured in Alessandro Manzoni’s novel,
The Betrothed], on which to base a novel and a film (as if he could
not assess the moral harm this would have caused).
 - His was the clamorous “absolution” of Graham Greene’s book,
“The Power and the Glory,” a longstanding entry in the Index.

- He multiplied the disobedient in every sector, granting his

tolerance to such as the “ACLI,” the “small groups,” the “base
communities,” the “Catholics for Socialism,” the “Fourth of
November” movement, the “worker priests,” the adherents to the
“Red Christ” of the Italian Socialist party (PSI); that is, a total
landslide to the left.

We conclude that he himself ditched all that sustained the Church

and Christian Europe: authority, hierarchy, discipline, family,
teaching, Catholic university, regular and secular clergy,
parishes. He himself declassed Sacraments, and imposed bogus
liturgical reforms.

In his speeches – even almost edifying – the new always prevails

over the traditional. But his forte was always to insert, after a
witticism or an anti-progressive reasoning, an additional piece
encouraging the progressives.

Similarly his hetero-praxis provoked 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 stood quite troubled. He kept saying, “He said
‘reconciliation’, not ‘conversion’!”
 ***

This was the real face of Paul VI. This was his Pontificate. Always
a progressive, upon election he would appear not to have succeeded
Peter so much as Judas.

One need only recall his steadfast opposition, at the Council, of the
“Coetus Internationalis Patrum,” while He never stopped
supporting the liberal Bishops.

Consider his immobile silence before the internal demolition of

the Church and his fiery perseverance in destroying the Catholic
Nations (Italy, Spain, etc.).

A fine example of immobile silence: 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 [which Paul could have
enforced!]. As for sin, however, not a single word!

***

I could endlessly continue to cite words and actions clearly

indicative of how authentic a liberal-modernist Paul VI had been.

- On June 30, 1968, in order to dispel suspicions as to his

modernism, Paul VI, at St. Peter’s square, for the closing of the
Year of the Faith, made a solemn “Profession of Faith, which
appeared as the “New Creed,” 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,”158 but Paul VI

had prefaced the text of his formulation of the act of Faith, with two
clarifications: (1) 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 it’s high time, too!]. But he put
everything back into question, as (2) he expressly excluded that his
Creed was, strictly speaking, “a dogmatic definition.”

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 even with some developments required by the
spiritual conditions of our time…”

That is very serious, a deliberate misconstruction; for every object-

proposition of a “Creed” constitutes “revealed truth, of divine
Faith and of Catholic faith,” attested in the Scriptures, in the
Apostolic Tradition (i. e., 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 he shielding himself from the critics, since he had
failed to condemn the Dutch Catechism? (Shortly after, in fact, he
had himself photographed together with ill-famed Dominican father
Schillebeeckx, co-author of that ill-famed catechism.

Be that 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.

***

What I reported of his remarks and deeds is more than sufficient, I

believe, to dishonor his Pontificate, so much so as to make us think
of him as of a novel Honorius.

Namely, when Pope Leo II confirmed the anathema of the II

Ecumenical Council of Constantinople against pope Honorius, he had
said only this:

“With Honorius, who did not, as became the Apostolic authority,

extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning,
but fostered it by his negligence.”

Now, this imputation can definitely be brought also 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 had himself 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 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; the sane 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 the
sacred things; and thousands of them are no longer baptized, because
of the quaint ideas of many priests; and the intercessions for the
defunct are now humbled into a banal and ugly liturgy.

At this juncture, to reform this Church, leprous with heresy and

irreverence, what is wanted 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 the unity; and only there the Truth is affirmed, and only
thence true Charity spreads out.
 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.”15.

After 1738, all of the Pontiffs renewed those admonitions and

those sanctions. Here are their major encyclicals on that theme:

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

“QUO GRAVIORA,” Apostolic Constitution of Leo XII, of 13

March 1820;

“ECCLESIAM” of Pius VII, against the Carbonari of 13

September 1821;

“TRADITI” of Pius VIII, of 24 May 1829, confirming the previous

“anathemas”;

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

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

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

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

***

Benedict XIV blessed Monsignor Jouin for his work: “Against the
Sects That are the Enemy 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: FREEMASONRY160.

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
effect161.

The approach of the Church, then, up until Vatican II, was always
clear and coherent. The condemnation of Freemasonry was because
of its tendency to destroy religious order and 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 new
bases, excluding Our Lord Jesus Christ, in order to achieve a
universal religion, according to the principle of democracy.

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

is 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.”162

“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
whatsoever.”163

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
condemnation 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, lets

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 spirits.”164 8

This new direction of the Church was confirmed by freemason

Yves Marsaudon165 in his book published at the conclusion of the
Council:

“When Pius XII decided to direct personally the very important

ministry of Foreign Affaires, 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 who, like his Precursor, called himself John, and then it all
began to change…166 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.’”167

And so, the new approach of the Church was the change of
course of 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.

How is it that with Vatican II there was such an opening to

Freemasonry, when Freemasonry had always been judged the
number one enemy of the Catholic Church? But any who followed
the progress of Vatican II should know that liberal and modernist
Bishops, not a few of whom belonged, if not de facto, ideologically
to Freemasonry, had taken over the Council.

The fact was patent, for example, in cardinal Achille Liénart,

Bishop of Lille, who ruined Vatican II from 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 occult 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 to
parliamentarians”; and that, in 1924, he was elevated to the 30th
degree and made “Kaddosh Knight.”168 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.

Therefore, it would not be out of place if we also recall his cry, on

his deathbed: “Humainement, l’Eglise est Perdue!”169

But then, what can 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 parts and at different stages, in an objective manner,

even violent, at times, was insinuated the idea that even Paul VI –
according to experts of heraldry and nobility –descended from
converted Jews,170 and would have been initiated by the B’nai B’rith
Lodge, and that he always entertained good relations with
Freemasons and Jewish circles.171
 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 examine closely
some of his doings and utterances.

Specifically:

1) Paul VI’s obituary by former Grand Master of Palazzo

Giustiniani [Rome headquarters, Grand Orient of Italy], Giordano
Gamberini, published in “La Rivista Massonica” magazine 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! … For the first time in history, Freemasons can pay
respect at a Pope’s tomb, without ambiguity or contradiction.”172

In fact, having considered the events that took place under Paul
VI’s Pontificate (such as to cause him to say that 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 Paulist Don Rosario F.

Esposito, on “La Rivista Massonica” Magazine, to former Grand
Master Gamberini, it is said:

“… Dear Gamberini, I appreciated, even in its Cartesian

aloofness, your editorial on the death of the Pope.”173

And he continued revealing some facts, spanning from 1950 to

1959, and which see 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), peace shall be sealed.”174

(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 19 July 1974,
thus the terms of “a generation” have been perfectly met.”175

That Letter was of 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.”176

As one can see, this concession was in open contrast with Canon
2335 of the Codex Juris Canonici, which established:

“Nomen dantes sectae massonicae aliisve eiusdem generis

associationibus quae contra Ecclesiam vel legitimas civiles
potestates machinantur, contrahunt ipso facto excommuni-
cationem Sedi Apostolicae simpliciter reservatam.”

(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 recalls – in support – other

facts of Paul VI’s in favor of Freemasonry. Like the following:

Paul VI “was not afraid to recognize that in the Church there

had been concessions to excessive diffidence” toward the Rotary
Club, an institution linked to Freemasonry177.

Further to what father Esposito wrote, we could add more

significant facts and remarks as to the mens 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”178.

– In a private letter, written by a freemason friend of the

renowned French writer, Count Léon de Poncins, an authority on
Masonic issues, this passage appears: “…With Pius X and Pius XII,
us freemasons could do very little, but, avec Paul VI, nous avons
vencu!” No need for translation!

–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 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”179.

And why did Paul VI lift the censures180 on Freemasonry, thus

allowing the laity to join it (if at the discretion of one’s own Bishop)?
And what right had he to do that, after more than 200 documents of
the Magisterium had condemned it?

And so it was that the Grand Master Lino Salvini, in an interview

on the eve of the assembly of the Grand Orient (18 March 1978),
could say, “Our relations with the Vatican are excellent.”

- And why was a portrait of Pius IX… 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 even deign me a reply.

– 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 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 rule thanks to a synthetic and universal religion.

And on August 9, 1965, in regard to Judaism, Islam, 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, if not that it is 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 that chamber of
meditation was… a Masonic Lodge.

***

But there are countless facts witnessing to his explicit collaboration

with Freemasonry.

- During his journey to the Holy Land (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 remove 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 chiefs of the

French Revolutions had sworn to overthrow the CROWN and
the TIARA on the tomb of Jacques de Molay.”181

However, this gesture of Paul VI was but the exteriorization of that

which he had already manifested on 7 December 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 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:

“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.”182

Man who makes himself god, therefore, commits Lucifer’s sin; he

follows, that is, the counsel of the ancient Biblical serpent: “You wi

ll 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 Order.183

It must be noted that this Jesuit heretic was one of the “masters
of Vatican II, through, in particular, his disciple De Lubac, who,
although banished by Pius XII,184 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.”185

At this juncture, we also recall what the Paulist 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 reached positions to the Holy Congregation for the Doctrine
of Faith and to Paul VI in person, who followed and encouraged
these meetings”186.

No wonder, then, if Paul VI wanted, in the Executive Committee

for a Concordant Bible, also the Grand Master of the Grand
Orient of Italy, professor Gamberini, who was among 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 to say of Paul VI when, on March 23, 1966, he put on

the finger of Dr. Ramsey, laman and freemason, Anglican
archbishop of Canterbury, his new conciliar ring and then
imparted, together with him, the blessing to those present?

And what to 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?

And how to 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 the mortgaging, syncretistically, of the Ecumenical
Movement of Assisi.

One further evidence lies in the words of Cardinal Franz König,

who, 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.”187

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 certainly not 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.
As Masonic are the Slavic Monarchy and the Orthodox Churches.

And what about the Catholic Church?

- The philosopher Augusto Del Noce, commenting on the

topicality of Benson’s “Lord 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, a Catholic rite
section may well subsist in unitary ecumenism.”

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 Paulist father Rosario Esposito, also
affirms:

“…Brothers active in organized Catholic groups, heading diocesan

and regional groups of laymen active in Catholic Action, in
Scoutism; and Brothers enjoying the full confidence of the Bishops,
to the point that, in some cases, they proactively collaborate in the
drafting of documents and Pastoral Letters, … Other collaborations
are carried out in the operation of Catholic and mixed institutions,
such as educational institutes, hospitals, clinics, management of
Charities and Philanthropic societies, which, from time immemorial,
and for recent constitution, include, in their executive Committees,
the presence of the bishop and of managers of structures
traditionally chaired by a freemason.”188

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 3 June 1971, in which he
addressed them as “My dear friends.”

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) all-out to wipe
out any trace of Christianity from the institutions?189

– 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 Anti-Defamation League 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.190

- 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, bearing a 16-page document concerning the “Holocaust.”191

Freemasonry had thus not only entered the grass-roots-Church,

but also the echelons of the Vatican, with both clerics and laymen.
The siege is “closing-in round the throne of the Pope.”192

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 Company of Jesus to the doings of
Freemasonry.193 That means the enemies of the Church have always
found the gates of the Vatican quite more than ajar.194 And that is
admitted even in the high spheres.195

Father Raimondo Spiazzi, so writes, on the subject:

As to the Conclaves of the future, 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]! He referred to Freemasonry, which he claimed
to know, through direct confidences, received from the affiliated, and
to know the schemes through which Freemasonry attempted to
tighten its grip on men and organs of the Vatican (he did not refrain
from suggesting names), and threatened to extend its grip onto the
Conclave. Perhaps it was also on the account of that, that he proposed
abolition of the secret: that all take place in the light of day!

Pope Albino Luciani, too, was aware of the Masonic danger196.

The Pope himself was quite polemic with the IOR [Institute for
Religious Works; financial arm of the Vatican], at a time the Corriere
[della Sera, Italy’s major newspaper] was in the hands of the IOR,
and the P2 [outlawed P2 Masonic Lodge, of Grand Master Licio
Gelli] chose its directors.197 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.”198

And counsel 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 ecclesiasts
to Freemasonry,” replied, “I saw many clergymen at the Lodge,
and never of the low clergy: they were always people of high
office.”199

Speaking of Vatican II, counsel Mario Bacchiega affirmed twice –

in December of 1962 and in November of 1963 – that the bishop of
the Mexican diocese of Cuernavaca, monsignor Sergio Mendez
Arceo, intervened, pleading that excommunication of freemasons
be dropped, as “by now there were many ecclesiastics
affiliated.”200

And the former Grand Master of the Grand Orient of Italy,

Giuliano Di Bernardo, in 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.”

***

At this point the truthfulness of “Pecorelli’s List” [Mino Pecorelli,

director of OP (Osservatorio Politico Internaziale,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,
it would have been they who pushed 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 have been
Secretary of State of the Holy See; it also includes that of another
cardinal (Poletti) whom Paul VI appointed 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 cardinals
Baggio, Suenens, and others?

Let us note, here, at least the most important of Paul VI’s

collaborators.

1st - Monsignor Pasquale Macchi

Paul VI’s personal Secretary from 1954 to 1978. His name is

included in the Pecorelli’s List, among the alleged freemasons, with
each entry well detailed: Affiliation: 23/4/1958; Registration:
5463/2; Monogram: MAPA.

2nd - Cardinal Jean Villot

Of his affiliation to Freemasonry I will talk, in detail, also in

chapter VII of this book. 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 when
of the higher grades. But, as always, the truth will 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 Rose Cross 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, which also reports
his data: Affiliation: 6/8/1966; Registration: 041/3; Monogram:
JEANNI.

3d - cardinal Agostino Casaroli

He, too, appears in Mino Pecorelli’s list, with these entries:

Affiliation: 28/9/1957; Registration: 41/076; Monogram: CASA.

The Paulist father Rosario Esposito, in his book: “The Great

Concurrences Between Church and Freemasonry”201 records 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
Cathedral, in New York, “a far-reaching homily,” whose contents
“confirm that the concurrences between Church and
Freemasonry may be considered actually achieved.”202

That Cardinal Casaroli is a freemason is also proven by his

excessive praise of 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 himself, in an address to the General Assembly of the
Lodge held at Paris from 3 to 7 September, 1967, had claimed to
Freemasonry the merit of Jacques Mitterand’s publications, and had
openly said, “one fine day, there sprang up from their ranks a
genuine scientist: Pierre Teilhard de Chardin,” underscoring that
“the ideas of the Jesuit Teilhard coincide with those of
Freemasonry.”

Only a freemason could have written such a Letter, giving body

to an heretic apostate - mediocre scientist, mediocre philosopher,
and mediocre theologian, – who, to a Dominican friend (who had
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 –
then Lino Salvini – of Italian Freemasonry), also offered further
evidence of Casaroli’s affiliation to Freemasonry. In fact, on the
weekly, OGGI of 17 June 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 was not mere
talk; that 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 John Paul II admitted 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 (in Chiesa Viva
n° 145), whose first signatory was in fact cardinal Casaroli. Now,
the Archbishop told me he had remarked to the Pope that my article
emphasized cardinal Casaroli’s inclusion in the Masonic lists. The
Pope, then, three times pounding his fist on the table, cried out, “I
know! I know! I know!”
 4th – cardinal Ugo Poletti

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 well detailed entries: Affiliation:
17/2/1969; Registration: 43/179; Monogram: UPO.

5th - cardinal Sebastiano Baggio

He, too, is enrolled in the Masonic lists203, with detailed entries:

Affiliation: 14/8/1957; Registration: 85/2640; Monogram: SEBA.
He was Prefect of the Congregation for the Bishops, in charge of
appointment of new Bishops, in spite of his alleged affiliation to the
Masonic sect, hence he could flood dioceses worldwide with
affiliates to Lodges, or pro-freemasons.

6th - cardinal Joseph Suenens

He too appears in the Pecorelli’s list, with detailed entries:

Affiliation: 15/6/1967; Registration: 21/64; Monogram: IESU.

Please note, moreover, that he was a most authoritative exponent

of Pax Christi, an organization in which political-social commitment
entirely submerges religious commitment. It is evident from its
manifest 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 prospective of that World Government,
or Universal Republic Freemasonry has been seeking since its
inception, as it is seen in 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 Church had always anathematized.204

It is no secret that he was also one of the great electors of Paul

VI,205 who promptly appointed him a Moderator of the Council.

Cardinal Suenens, for the election of Paul VI – preceded,

propitiated, and decided – attended a sort of pre-Conclave, held at
Grottaferrata, [on Rome’s outskirts near Castelgandolfo, site of the
Papal summer retreat] in the villa of Umberto Ortolani, well-known
member of Licio Gelli’s P2 Lodge.206

Congressman Andreotti, in his book, A ogni morte di Papa [],

speaking of that gathering, recounts that one of the participants told
him, more or less seriously, that the canonical majority was
already wrapped up.207

7th - Archbishop Annibale Bugnini

Paul VI put in charge of the implementation of the Liturgical

Revolution, him whom Pope John XXIII had kicked out of the
Pontifical University. But Paul VI called him back, appointing him
First Secretary of the Concilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de
Sacra Liturgia, and, afterwards, Secretary of the Congregation for
the Divine Cult. But when a Cardinal produced evidence of
Monsignor Bugnini’s affiliation to Freemasonry,208 Paul VI was
forced to send him away from Rome (but why not dismiss him?)
dispatching him as 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 24 February
1973, p. 5) reported: “(…) Two ceremonies (Mass for the students
of the Catholic schools, and Mass of the youth)… also destined to
remain an example of liturgical experimentation, carefully
studied and correctly implemented: first, through sacred dances
and an anaphora prepared for the occasion; then, through the
accompaniment of an authentic ‘pop’ band. After attending the
two liturgies, monsignor Annibale Bugnini, secretary of the
Congregation for the Divine Cult, said it had been the
culminating point of the celebration; a great example of a
solution for the last of the issues the liturgical movement must
resolve: the recovery to liturgy of a traditional exterior sign of
the sacred, such as is dance, and the employment of new
instruments and chants, fitting the mind of the youth of today.”

It was and is a Masonic scheme, destined to become a sad and

distressing reality.

8th - Archbishop Paul Marcinkus

He was President of the Institutio Opere di Religione (IOR). He is

also listed among the alleged freemasons on 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 Freemasonry.209

***

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 Paul VI’s command greatly exceed those cited. Here it
will suffice to name two more, of major significance: cardinals
König and Liénart.

9th - Cardinal Franz König

This freemason cardinal was archbishop Vienna, where he was

Primate. He underwent two legal proceedings, both of which
recognized his affiliation to Freemasonry. (He was acquitted only
for the reason that Freemasonry in Austria is legally recognized).

A German writer, E. K., could prove, in court, the affiliation of

cardinal König 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 fine.210

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., who, however, “could
prove cardinal König’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 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 König, for the salvation of his soul, “immediately to leave
the Masonic Lodge.”

Another evidence of cardinal König’s affiliation to Freemasonry

may be traced in his greetings to the Convention of Assisi, on 22
August 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 scheme.211
Freemason cardinal König 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 which corresponds to the Masonic image of the new man.212

Even the official historian of Italian Freemasonry, professor

Aldo Mola, points to König as a Freemasonry member – based on
information from a very high and very well informed dignitary
from Palazzo Giustiniani – as a member of a covert Roman
Lodge213.

The following may also be accounted as further very serious

evidence against him: 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 5 July 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 mixed
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
König who recommended to the conciliar Fathers finally to take into
consideration the ideas of Teilhard de Chardin on evolution.
 10th - cardinal Achille Liénart

He appears as freemason in various lists, as in Introibo of July

1976 and in the Italian weekly Il Borghese [The Bourgeois]. He was
initiated into Freemasonry at Cambrai in 1912, and in 1924 he was
elevated to 30th degree of the ancient and accepted Scottish rite.

The freemason Monsieur B., (healed at Lourdes on 19 July 1932;

with the healing recognized also by the Bureau des Constatations on
18 July 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 14 October

1962, during the First Session of Vatican II, sparked the rebellion
against the study and work plans prepared by the various
Commissions of the Roman Curia, rejecting even the names the Curia
had proposed for the composition of the various Commissions.214

Cardinal Liénart was also one of the chiefs 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 that freemason

cardinal, on his deathbed, had exclaimed: “Humanly speaking,
the Church is lost.”215

***

At this juncture, perhaps one will ask oneself whether the

authenticity of those Masonic lists had been or not verified, for it
would be disconcerting that Freemasonry, condemned and execrated
by the pre-conciliar Church from time immemorial, could, today,
after Paul VI, come to acquire such enormous power – even though
still occult and uncontrollable – over the entire Catholic Church.
Thus before wrapping up our theme on the opening of Paul VI to
Freemasonry, it is opportune that we spend a word upon the elements
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 unbeknown 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 simple-mindedness 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 26
December 1992, affirmed that the P2 “was not a deviated lodge, but
it was necessary to sacrifice it so it would not be discovered that
true Freemasonry was a secret Society.”

Having clarified that, we can move on to the reliability of the

principal list which appeared in “OP” (Osservatorio Politico
Internazionale) Magazine of 12 September 1978, thus subsequent to
that which came out on Panorama Magazine of 10 August 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, who, in turn, passed the task over to Carabinieri General
Enrico Mino.216 He, on the basis of the investigations, expressed his
conviction that the list was reliable.217 Cardinal Siri, too, used the
service of general Mino, in mid 1977, for investigations on
Panorama Magazine. Unfortunately, the general passed away on
October 31 that year, in the Calabria region, on mount Rovello, in
more than suspicious circumstances,218 carrying with him to the grave
the result of his investigation. 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 - 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 Secretary of State, who made him swear
“that he was not lying about so grave a matter.”219 Some
photocopies of those documents were also in the possession of
cardinal Staffa.220

I had assurance of this fact from a cardinal of the Curia,221 who

later also gave me some photocopies of those same documents.

3d - 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, the newly elected Pontiff did
not have the time, perhaps even because Pope Luciani, who had
manifested his intention of having a hand in the issue of the IOR
and thus involve the list of alleged Prelates affiliated to
Freemasonry, too, passed away in circumstances and ways as yet
unknown.222 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 other secrets concerning the Masonic sect in
his possession.

One could ask: 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 recognize, then, that that lack of denials and
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 pro-Nuncio to Iran.

However, another serious corroboration of the Pecorelli’s list

appeared also in the weekly OGGI of 17 June 1981, already
mentioned, under the title: “Salvini Confided to Me Names of
People Above Suspicions.” It is an interview of counsel
Ermenegildo Benedetti, of Massa Carrara, former Grand Orator of
the Grand Orient of Italy, and thus number two 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 the Vatican finances, the so called Banker of
God. About these people the buzz had been around since 1970. Let
there 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.”

I would have you note:

1st, that the names uttered by him are all to be found in Pecorelli’s
list;

2nd, that they were not voices, but “confidential information,”

recurrent in the high spheres 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.

***

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 subtract 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?

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, Masonism, into dust. Upon his death,
however, Freemasonry believed the hour had come for their revival
and their triumph over the Church. The freemason Leone
Gambetta,223 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, from whom Pius IX had attempted to snatch
the tiara, 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, 22 February 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, on 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
exegetes work as they pleased, who would recommend and
practice tolerance toward the other religions, who would not
renew the excommunication of Freemasonry.”224

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.

Unfortunatly, the underlying maladies of the Church of 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 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 of
“Passatism” 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 ecumenism at any
cost.

And thus came 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.”

Only in this neo-modernist light the opera omnia of Paul VI

during and following the Vatican II, ought to be seen.

CHAPTER V

HIS OPENING TO UNIVERSAL DEMOCRACY

 And thus man, to Paul VI, is above anything else; that is why he
and his texts betray more keenness in defending man’s rights rather
than God’s. He confuses humanism with Christianity. The Christian
religion unquestionably more than any other is ordered to the best for
man, but 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, since original sin, is less inclined to good than to evil: egoism,
cupidity, vengeance, hatred, wickedness of all kinds, hence it can be
but utopia, this fancying a society in which all men love one another,
respect one another, all the more if the respect for the Rights of God
is not inculcated prior to all else.

That elementary, fundamental truth Paul VI continuously chose to

ignore, ever accenting human rights, echoing the French Revolution.

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 that put Europe to the sword, claiming in
this way to liberate 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 of the building of Christianity.225

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.

The Declaration of 1789 claimed that the will of the sovereign

people replaced the will of the SOVEREIGN GOD; claimed that
human laws overcome divine laws; that natural rights supersede
supernatural rights. 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 held a different view. He regarded the Charter of

Human Rights as the modern version of the Gospel.

St. Pius X had written:

“…They fear not to draw between the Gospel and the Revolution
blasphemous comparisons.”226
 Paul VI filled his entire Pontificate with a relentless preaching of
Human Rights, both of individuals and Nations.227

“Something new was being perceived – said he – They were live

ideas, concurrences between the great principles of the
Revolution, which did nothing but appropriate some Christian
concepts: fraternity, equality, progress, desire of elevating the
unprivileged classes. Hence, all this is Christian; and yet it had
borne, then, an anti-Christian sign, secular, anti-religious,
tending to misrepresent this part of the evangelical heritage,
aiming at developing human life in an elevated and noble
sense.”228

It is not an “anti-Christian sign,” but rather an anti-Christian

spirit that has appropriated 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.”229

After that false conciliar assertion, this other assertion of Paul VI

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.”230

It would appear that, to Paul VI, to profess the “Gospel” or the

“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.”231

A requirement of the Gospel? But where in the Gospel, is a text –

at least one! – 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 better to
fulfill her ministry, the Church intends to manifest respect and
care of ‘Human Rights’ within herself.”232

How odd! Paul VI affirms that, in order to convert fully to the

Lord and that better to 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 any
thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.”233

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. Said he:

“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.”234

Let us recall, then, what Leo XII wrote, on 8 December 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.”235

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 sores still open,
respect of ‘Human Rights’ is of the utmost importance…”236

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 (that takes no account God and

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).

Note that the Charter of Human Rights has produced only

conflicts, upheavals, disputes, and wars, since man, separated from
God, shall always dream of claiming rights rather than 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 – said he 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 (8 December

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 of 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 4 October 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:

“The ‘Charter of Human Rights’: is to claim for anyone,

regardless of race, age, sex, and religion, respect for human
dignity and for the conditions necessary to its practice, not to
translate, high and clear, the unanimous aspiration of the hearts
and the universal testimony of the 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 to the United Nations of 4 October 1965:

“A system apt to catering to public welfare such as might interest

mankind as a whole, cannot subsist other than yours, founded
upon 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 overbearing power.”

Words to the wind, these of Paul VI, 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.”237

But neither Christ, nor the Grace of the Sacraments, nor the Law of
the Gospel dwell in Paul VI’s mind, committed, as he is 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 Vicar of Christ has this Paul VI been?

“We must – said he – close ranks with one another not only
through press and radio and ships and jet-planes, but we must
close ranks through our hearts, through our mutual
understanding, esteem, and love.”

Everything onto the human, that is! 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 the line, just as on September 1, 1963,

as 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, can man
put into practice the Law of Christ: BUT SEEK YE FIRST THE
KINGDOM OF GOD, AND HIS JUSTICE; AND ALL THESE
THINGS SHALL BE ADDED UNTO YOU.238

No progress, not even of a human and temporal nature, is at all

possible, but insofar as man seeks first the Kingdom of God.

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 vaporous and extravagant 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.”239

The ludicrous and hallucinating utterances of a false prophet! The

Word of God, besides, clearly refutes his assertions. “Non est pax
impiis.”240 (The wicked have no peace.) 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 set up
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.”241

Peace, therefore, can be a fruit neither of man’s civilization, nor of

the United Nations.

And the same must be said of Justice. And yet Paul VI, even here,
to the conciliar Fathers, on October 4, 1965, said this:

“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.”

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 prospective of peace to the establishment of justice.
And that he wrote in his “Populorum Progressio” of 26 March 1967,
in which his analysis has a flavor of Marxism, since the word Justice
pairs up with the word Equality; that is, either rich peoples share
their resources with the deprived peoples, or it would be war (as if it
were not exactly the opposite, since it is always the rich and powerful
peoples who cause wars, with the precise intent of pushing the poor
peoples deeper and deeper into poverty, hence, into impotence).

In any case, all “Populorum Progressio” did, in the way it is

written, is stir the resentments of Third World peoples, proposing
them development as an objective (if through their own efforts), and
as an end the pressure upon the rich peoples, so that they would 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 at different times, 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 the good Catholics and all the 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, that too, which is pure 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; an unveiled 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…”242

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.”243

It is a program, however, of Masonic philanthropy, of integral

Socialism, to be realized through force. St. Pius X would say, as he
did in the Sillon: “Its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings Socialism in
its train.”244

Now, that is not the design of God, but a causing of the faithful to
look away from Heaven in order to turn them into slaves of the
World, as 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.

What place would religion occupy in that planned city of man?

What place would be due to religion in that new humanism
proclaiming continuously that man is sufficient to himself, hence he
can do without transcendence, revelation, supernatural redemption,
dogma, cult, particular 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 Sidney, 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 the ones with the others.”245

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...”246, hence “any
discrimination, be it of an ethical, cultural, religious or political
nature, is unjustified and inadmissible.”247

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 with 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.”248

And adds he:

“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.”249

Paul VI, therefore, that new city, ideal and secular, he wanted to
fortify with that supplement of faith and love the UN needs. 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!

***

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,250 since it is no longer the case to interest the souls
in supreme things,251 but to put them at the service of humanity.

And that is Paul VI’s Ecumenism! A confusing, 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.”252

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 9 August 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, become, 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.”253

It seems the condemnation of Religion 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.

In conclusion, with that Project-Utopia of Paul VI, 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. The integral Humanism advocated by Paul VI
would come definitively to suffocate Religion, and turn into 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 who, with his
Political Utopia, already expressly condemned by his Predecessors,
attempted to corrupt the Faith of the Church of Christ.
 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 was going well, that all the Church was suffering from was a
healthy crisis of growth, but that, in the end, all would turn out into a
wonderful flourishing, now, that thesis having become unsustainable,
they would have one believe that all of the current evil can be
attributed neither to the Pope nor to Vatican II, but only to the
disobedience of the faithful in failing 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 accuse of disobedience to the Pope and to the

Council, 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, and they are the product of the
Hierarchy of the Church. Undeniably! Wiping out, with the Holy
Office, its restrictions, which raised dams in protection from the
waves of error and evil, in protection of souls, meant granting
permission to 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 refer to Catholic
Faith is impossible to comprehend. Sure, Paul VI undersigned the
encyclicals “Mysterium Fidei” (3 September 1965), “Sacerdotalis
Coelibatus” (24 June 1967), “Humanae Vitae” (25 July 1968),
which are a faithful[?] echo of Catholic Tradition; as he also had to
suffer for the systematic criticism that came about, for some of his
Acts of Magisterium, on the part of many priests and whole
Episcopates. In any case, his affirming Truth without ever
condemning errors remains incomprehensible.

We can similarly express our wonderment for his traditional

doctrine in his Wednesday Allocutions (save for some exceptions),
while he let a flood of insane theories and dogmatic and moral
rubbish be taught even in the churches. It was, therefore, an
inexplicable toleration, at any level, of so many errors Paul VI
seemed to reject, and yet continuously let flourish about him, though
these poisoned souls.

In so acting, his negligence was similar to that which earned pope

Honorius the condemnation of 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.

Negligence, inertia, complicity. And friends of Atheists and

Communists, on account of a yearning for dialogue that allowed him
to cut peace with Protestants, shirking the ancient condemnations
and withholding new condemnations of the protestantization afoot in
the Church.

And thus he started and carried forward the demolition of all

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
regulations254, so that errors could no longer be condemned in the
traditional way.

“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…”

This suggests that the faithful 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 - 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, namely, the catalogue of
the books the Holy See prohibited as bad or harmful to the 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 Constitution on The Church in
the Modern World, the Council has acknowledged to the secular
a greater maturity and higher responsibilities in the Church,
Mystical Body of Christ.”255
 An odd act, to say the least, as it seems that Paul VI had 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…”256.

That, however, 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, however, 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.” (!!)257

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 (other than the incompetence!) of many
Ordinaries and of the Episcopal Conferences, which still have the
duty of standing watch?

And how explain that, months after the abolition of the Index, were
also abolished two articles of the Canon Law 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.

He did this 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.”258

Hence, even the authors who, 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
either repentance or retraction of their errors.

This leads to conclude that, to Paul VI, that which under his
Predecessors was considered error or hazard for the Christian souls,
under his Pontificate it was no longer such. Therefore, by absolving
the heretical or immoral authors and distributors, not converted, of
bad books, Paul VI signed the approval of the error and granted
it citizenship rights in the Church.

Another green light of Paul VI was that of the abolition of the

anti-modernist Oath prescribed by St. Pius X to the clergy in order
to shield them from the doctrinal errors of Modernism. He had also
prescribed a Profession of Faith, of the Council of Trent, already
prescribed by Pius IV.

Paul VI abrogated these two provisions of Pius X, and replaced

them with a brief accommodating and flexible formula. That anti-
modernist Oath must have been, to Paul VI, against the freedom of
the clergy, as it kept it 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 worth… even with respect to the theological elaboration of
the revealed truth”259 (?!).

Bewildering indeed!

But Paul VI, too, had wanted a Vatican II that would be only
pastoral, hence removed from solemn pastoral formulas that are
called dogmatic260. Doubtless it was not to upset a modern man no
longer fond of the role of pupil, and not to upset the sensibility of the
separated brethren. 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, 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.”261 (?!)

How could Paul VI say that integral Christian Faith cannot 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?”262

So, only the Truth of the Lord is principle of unity, and that only
among those who accept it. And yet Paul VI, not to create “a
reason of polemic,” abstained from teaching of authority, as it
was indeed 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.”263

But what value could an encyclical have, then, which 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.”264

Words that sound as a farewell to the command of Jesus Christ,

“Going therefore, teach ye all nations,”265 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 forced inversion between
docete and discuss. Neither did I hear a condemnation, with regard to
Paul VI’s “Creed,” 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 “Creed,” which,
without being a dogmatic definition in the strict sense of the
word…”266

Astonishing! But why? Perhaps out of respect for individual

freedom of thought? 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 desired a new language with new formulas, 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 the doors to all kinds of heresies, granting the greatest
freedom and real immunity to Christians, as well as complete
autonomy to scholars and theologians.267 It was then that he abrogated
all the instruments and control institutions for doctrine. And that
marked the end of Authority. Licence, now ruled.
 Paul VI thus, as a side effect, became sympathetic with heretics,
having turned accomplice and Protector, even 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.”268

Lamentably, Paul VI put that anarchical form directly into

practice. Having made it his duty to become the Pope of the
apertura, 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 chiefs, fierce persecutors, soiled with
the blood of Christian Martyrs, offering them the warmest hospitality,
even though, the visit 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, a luminous

sign of charity, whereas we dispute this precisely on the very level of
that very virtue. We say: why did Paul VI use that opening and
tolerance with the distant, while he always made an exception when it
came to the Traditionalists? Was traditional Faith then such an
awful crime, to 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?
Let us bring some examples:

On June 29, 1970, several hundred traditionalist Catholics 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 chief of the anti-
Portuguese rebellion. Even the press reacted. The Osservatore
Romano (4 July 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 much
toiled, during the Council, to ensure the triumph of the thesis of the
Jewish Jules Isaac, who, however, had dared to affirm, “Your
Evangelists are downright liars!” and again, “Your Fathers of the
Church are forgers, are iniquitous.”269
 “Facts” and remarks that call for cogitation.

One more example: in June of 1973, while he again refused to

receive the representatives of 4000 traditional Catholics, from all
over the world, Paul VI received, in special audience, a group of
Talmudic Rabbis and the Patriarch of the Bonzes.

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 he received Bishops and priests who supported

Communism, who gave their blessing to immoral books, or erroneous
in Faith, since he was respectful of their “freedoms,” Paul VI
sacrificed cardinal Mindszenty, martyr of the Communist folly and
criminality, on 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 had always 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, nor to adulterate 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 all that divides, such as dogmas, hinge of a sole truth, the
holy intransigence that gave the Church millions of Martyrs. 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 the dissidents, with the heretics, with the mundane, with the
rebels, with the atheists, and opening to all religions; on the
other, his constant hostility and inflexibility against the defenders
of the Catholic Faith.

An opening, his opening, characteristic of a Masonic Ecumenism,

that calls to mind his true masters: Lamennais, with his Messianism;
Sangnier, 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 New Gospel, with its trilogy:

Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.

- World Democracy, or earthly version of the Kingdom of God,

and a “Religion” inclusive of every confession, and as inspirer of a
renewed Humanity.

Hence: Humanity in lieu of the Church!

Pope Leo XIII, on the contrary, in his encyclical “Humanum

Genus” (20 April 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?”270

Paul VI, at Bombay, on December 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, down deep, are good, he, Paul VI, “expert in
humanism”271, again said:

“Yes, peace is possible, for men, down deep, 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…”272
“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.”273

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 of 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 does 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 the “sins.”

Thus even if the word of God is “Non est pax impiis”274, 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 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 Babel Tower – 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 of “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 impiety his 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?

CHAPTER VII
HIS OPENING TO COMMUNISM

In the book of the German Reinhard Raffalt: “Where is the

Vatican Headed?” with subtitle: “The Pope Between Religion and
Politics,” the author offers a soft 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
placing the accent upon the “mens” of Pius XII on Communism,
which Pius XII defines “a tragedy for humanity,” hence he drew
the consequences through the “excommunication” of all Catholics
professing their communist faith, through his constant refusal of any
contact with Communism, because “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 atheist, does not imply, for that reason, a
basic inability to meet the social expectations contained in the
Gospel. Hence Monsignor Montini’s “contrasting” attitude toward
Pius XII, convinced as he was of the necessity of contributing, in
primis, 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, betrayed Pius XII.
By now, Montini’s betrayal belongs to History. A true and
authentic history! It was 1954, and illness and old age were already
exacting their toll on Pius XII. It was colonel Arnauld, of the French
Deuxième Bureau, the Brigadier General for the Intelligence
Service, and Pius XII’s “James Bond.” A career officer, then, but,
above all, a man of strict morals and a practicing Catholic. At the end
of the war, he leaves the British and resumes his post within the ranks
of the French Secret Services. It is then, shortly after the armistice,
that the “Quai d’Orsay” (French Foreign Ministry) entrusts him with
a mission by Pope Pius XII, to ask him to expel from their dioceses
twenty-two French bishops, whom Charles De Gaulle’s government
held responsible for having favored Marshal Pétain’s regime. When
he presented the request of his government (received by the Pope
“very coldly”), Pius XII asked 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 asked for
time in order to study the dossiers 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 form the Deuxième

Bureau. Pius XII, having got wind of it, summoned him to Rome and
offered him employment as his personal agent, answering only to
Pius, because – said he – “A diplomat must stick to some rules and
be very prudent; unlike an agent.”

The Colonel takes on the offer, takes his oath to the Pontiff and sets
out on his new mission. During a tour in the East, he entered into
relationship with the Lutheran bishop of Uppsala, Primate of Sweden,
who, 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, who, quite astounded by the thing, 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, all blanched in the face.

In brief: the last official text, signed by the pro-Secretary of State,

Monsignor Montini, bears the date of 23 September 1954275. On
November 1, 1954, Pius XII removed Monsignor Montini from
the Secretariate of State.

From other information it is learned that, in that tragic 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,”276 whose case was growing worse.

That Monsignor Montini had been removed from the Secretariate of

State as 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”277… Further on, he writes, “he (Paul VI) goes
through an experience similar to that 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. The
General spoke to me, at first, of many things relating to the Church of
today, 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, he was to impose the secularization of the
schools. To my query if also cardinal Daniéleu was a freemason, he
replied with an episode: “That same question – said he – I asked, on
the phone, a friend of mine, who, however, hung up on me not to
respond.” He then went on to inform me about many other high
Prelates and some Jesuits, freemasons; in primis, of freemason
cardinal Villot278. He told me that Villot’s parents were both
freemasons of the “Rose Cross.” And he told me an episode,
recounted to him by the very Officer subject of the “fact”: when this
[officer] learned that the Bishop of Lion, 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 freemason chiefs. 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,” 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.”

At last, he recounted to me the story of the removal of

Monsignor Montini from the Secretariate of State by Pius XII, as
he was really working for Russia, unbeknown to the Pope, and,
therefore, in betrayal of him. It is a fact that Montini never set a
foot in the Vatican anymore while Pius XII lived.

To my last question, “But why, then, did Pius XII send Montini to
Milan, such a prestigious cardinalitial see, after Montini had
betrayed him?” The General answered, smiling, “Nay! It wasn’t
Pius XII who sent 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 was
traditionally a cardinalitial 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: “Colonel Arnaud 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 in a
wheelchair, ill. His wife was with him. He seated me 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, on his own initiative, with
Russia and some other Eastern powers, hence Pius XII
“expelled” him from the Secretariate 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 that he
often signaled to the Cardinals that he would not have him as his
successor.

These are not “State revelations,” since everything I heard, with

my own ears, on the Montini “affair,” is still in the “French
Archives.”

***

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 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 Chief, Palmiro Togliatti, as far back as July of 1944279.

These were meetings and conversations that always took place

unbeknown 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” which took place
on July 10, 1944.

It is subdivided into five paragraphs:

1) On last July 10, at the house of a Christian Democrat 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 Democrat and the
Communist parties.

2) Ever since his return to Italy, Togliatti had confidential meetings

with eminent personalities of the Christian Democrat Party. These
contacts represented the political backdrop of Togliatti’s address of
Saturday, July 9, at the “Brancaccio” theater [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 Democrat 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 Democrat, 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 Democrat 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. [Announced in late 1973

by Italian Communist Party secretary Enrico Berlinguer, it was the
project of an historic alliance (worked out with the Christian
Democrat Aldo Moro, 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 the 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 1st June 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, in early 1942, done
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 the 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 certainly does not 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 a Prelate personal friend of the
communist leader’s, namely Monsignor Giuseppe de Luca,
arranged those contacts.

Pope John XXIII – from whom Montini received his purple –

opened even wider to Montini the path of dialogue with the
Communist world, after his famous encyclical “Pacem in Terris” of
10 April 1962, in which Communism, though not directly named, is
however considered in full dialectical evolution, that is, no longer
coincident with Karl Marx’s doctrine, although retaining its
principles.280

Paul VI’s Pontificate would thus follow that path, cleared by

John XXIII, who had commenced difficult negotiations with the
Patriarchs both of Moscow and 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 Nikodim. Along that Giovannean line,
then, proceeded Paul VI’s entire 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 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, Metropolitan 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 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, remaining 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, either on the spot, or after his return to Rome. Paul
VI, in this way, gave victory to atheist Moscow, persecutor of the
Catholic faithful.

But in Rome was already cardinal Joseph Slipyi (following 17

years of incarceration in Soviet concentration camps, and narrowly
escaping execution), directing a large community of Ukrainian
faithful 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 appointment to Patriarch of the great archbishop (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 was

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 thought – his umpteenth illusion? – 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, approving the Soviet
choices, despite their perverted continuous political control. And
when, in May of 1972, an 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 swallow 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 despite the continuous persecutions

against the Catholic faithful, who were being thrown into gulags,
tortured, shipped to Siberia, and murdered. The most marked and
evident gestures, in favor of the wishes of the Soviets, on the part of
Paul VI, one could hardly add up. Even his cardinals he removed
from their sees, thus depriving them of any influence, precisely on
account of their intransigence toward the local Governments. So did
he with Cardinal Mindszenty, whom Paul VI, on 18 December
1974, “relieved” 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 worshipping the criminal “reason of 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.

Will note Mindszenty, in his Memoirs: “I begged him (Paul VI)

to recede from that decision, but to no avail.”

Unfortunately, on June 8, 1977, Paul VI demeaned himself to

receive Janos Kadar, too. No Communist Party Secretary had ever
crossed the threshold of a Pope’s private study. There would come
about, sadly, even the first approach, outside the norm, between John
XXIII and Adzhubei. Kadar would be the second. He, the
murderer in pectore, as he was the instigator, of cardinal
Mindszenty, the great “Confessor” of the “Church of the
Silence.” That gesture of Paul VI, however, constituted a shame for
his inhuman and scatterbrained Ostpolitik, which left hundreds
and hundreds of thousands of Catholics in the gulags and under the
tortures, without a minimal solemn protest, public, before the
world, in order to remain faithful to his pro-Soviet political line that
would end disastrously, in 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
“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 Marxist key.

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 apotheosis – as he deserved – saw not even a
“Representative” of the “new” Hungarian Catholic Church,
which sent neither a wreath nor a word. Not even the Apostolic
Nuncio to Austria attended. Only the “free world” – 4000
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 the 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-parole.281

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 for 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 König, 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 make them over to the
Vatican, which would then proceed as it saw fit.”282

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, Paul VI disgracefully lifted the
excommunication Pius XII had inflicted against the clerics
collaborationist with the Kadar regime; and months later, He
also reneged on the promise of leaving Mindszenty the spiritual
care 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 was to utter in public to the preliminary
Vatican censure.283

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 of Archbishop-Primate of Hungary. Dignifiedly, yet
firmly, cardinal Mindszenty, on December the 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 about.284 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 the 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 that 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
freemason cardinal König, 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. In addition,
Paul VI, in 1977, would welcome Kadar at the Vatican, in full pomp,
Mindszenty’s Satanic persecutor, to whom Paul VI reaffirmed 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.”285

***

That is the real Paul VI. A Pope who, in defense of his Ostpolitik,
always blind and 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.

***

And to his Ostpolitik Paul VI sacrificed also cardinal Slipyi,

Primate of the Uniate Church of Ukraine. Arrested shortly after 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
sentence to seven years imprisonment and forced labor, and, at
last, he suffered a fourth sentence with 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 institutes,
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 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

hero 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 concentration camp. Having become bishop of
Litomericka, in 1947, he was arrested in 1951, and 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 upon, prevented from exercising his
functions. In April of 1974, after a last criminal interrogation, which
was to last 6 hours, he suffered a break down. The following day, this
hero of the Faith passed away.

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 [formed in 1969 to
establish a revolutionary state 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 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 had he ever a word, a reaction, 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, other than with Moscow, 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,” an utopia comprised of
Christianity and Socialism.

With his pro-Communist “mens” Paul VI turned to the Chinese

communists as well. 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, unbeknown 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. Up 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, awaited 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, 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.” (!!)

In 1971, Communist China was admitted into the UN. The

Vatican promptly saluted the event voicing 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 Affaires 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, Foreign Affairs minister, 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 nuclear weapons, the Minister for Religious Affairs
reserved him a humiliating reception.

The evolution toward Beijing, however, continued. The Russians

were vexed and the Russian ambassador in Rome, who 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 for 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 had always the upper hand, so that the
Free World knew 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
zeal for God, or for 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:

On July 29, 1969, he traveled to Uganda, and there, he manifested

great respect toward “Prime Minister” Obote, a thief and
bloodsucker 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” 4 August 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
delays 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 a sample 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 all Africa’; to say it with the
closing expression of the address.”

Paul VI, to be sure, reclaimed the independence of the Negroes 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” (!!) places the Law always
on the side of their (Negroes’) upheaval and claims, but to the
advantage of the “Maquis” of liberation and of every terrorism of
color, as we can witness, even today, in 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. An 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 Chiefs of the

terrorist Movement of Angola, Mozambique, Guinea-Bissau and
Cape Verde. He admitted them to the hand kiss 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 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 atheist Marxism,
which went as 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
Church.286

Certainly, Paul VI’s fixed idea on Communism was still that

contained in “Pacem in Terris,” namely, the distinction between
historical movement (fixed) and ideology (in continuous
evolution)287; 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, his former
collaborator at the Secretariate of State, who opted out of priesthood
in order to join Communism. Monsignor Montini obtained for him an
extraordinary dispensation of the religious form.288 quite unusual
indeed. An exceptional service to his collaborator (his and
Moscow’s) that aroused doubts as to its finality.

Another scandal, Paul VI gave through Monsignor Glorieux, who

covered his person at the time of the “fraudulent subtraction of the
‘Petition’ of 450 Bishops reclaiming from the Council, in
September of 1965, the condemnation of Communism.”289 That
scandal produced its effect. The Pope – they said – did not want the
Council to condemn Communism; hence Communism is no
longer condemned.

All that from his first Encyclical, “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 narrated, however, dispels any

doubt. It will suffice to recall once more the forced transfer of
cardinal Mindzenty, 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 who, before the
Synod, cried out his indignation to the traitors who cut a peace
with the persecutors, oblivious of their faithful, whom Soviet
Communism persecute and torture:

“Out of 54 millions Catholic Ukrainians - said he – ten millions

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 incommodious witnesses? Could we have become a drag
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 Secretariate of State. Their
opening to Communism begot a world of declarations, intrigues,
occurrences that 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 to the communist Government of Hanoi.290

When Paul VI decided to build a hospital in communist North

Vietnam, at war, because the United States bombarded it, causing
carnage, he showed, through that gesture, that his “neutralism” was
biased, invariably in the direction of Communism.

By now, Paul VI had become a drive belt of the Communist

drive “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 of 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, busy, prosperous, and harmonious life.
We send out our votes to China, so distant from Us
geographically and yet so spiritually close… And We would like
to reason 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.”291

Horrible and foolish words, which cannot hide his unconditional

pro-Communism.

***

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 impetrate of the Virgin Mary the mercy
of God, and, consequently, the peace in this riotous world. But that
would not be the case. Paul VI did, to be sure, travel to Fatima, on
13 May 1967, fifty years after the 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 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 suite, 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, which Paul VI had flaunted, 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
Laurentin defined it “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

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, besides, as these did not understand Paul
VI’s speech in the French language, he could exchange only a few
meaningless words, 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 the impression that 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 recited not even a “Hail Mary!”

Finally: the last of the clairvoyants, Sister Lucia, asked him,

weeping, a few personal moments together; 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 is never to see anymore.”

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 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
heard, with great attention, the two Jewish she-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
that, therefore, could not believe, since then already, in the
Apparitions of Fatima, in the Apparitions of a Virgin Mary that,
unlike him, did not come to terms with Moscow, 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 on-going Great Apostasy. And so the peoples,
with the Faith, shall also relinquish their life.

But then, why did Paul VI travel to Fatima? Is it perhaps to

substitute his Message to that of the “Queen of Peace?” The
message he manifested in Manhattan, at the UN, by demanding
“Peace” not of Heaven, but of man’s heart, to which Paul VI
entrusted it?

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 a cheek! 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.”

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!”

An hallucinating 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,” whom 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.
 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 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’ has been

imposed on 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 by at least two decades the appearance of all of the
Scriptural texts of the New Testament.”

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 and modify it, particularly the formula of the
Eucharistic Consecration, willed by Christ… ever since the onset
of the Apostolic preaching of the Gospel.

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 (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.

Paul VI, with his reform of the Mass, disregarded the teaching
of the (1870) Vatican Council, which reads, verbatim:

“The Holy Ghost has promised the successors of Peter, not that they may
disclose new doctrine by His revelation, but that they may, with His
assistance, preserve conscientiously and expound faithfully the revelation
transmitted through the Apostles, the deposit of Faith.” (Pastor Aeternus,
July 18, 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.”293

In addition: Paul VI, having disregarded the two aforementioned

documents of the Supreme Magisterium, went so far as to tamper
with the “Eucharistic Consecratory Formula,” established by
Christ in person, insinuating, to almost the entire Church, that that
formula contained something that needed fixing, violating, in this
manner, also Canon 6 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, specious and polyvalent, in order
to please the Protestants, should Paul VI be comprised, too, under
that excommunication of the Council of Trent?

Even cardinal Ratzinger, in his autobiography, “My Life,”

mentions the “… Tragic error 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.”294

And he pursued295:

“… 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 live
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 was no longer Catholic, 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.”

All St. Pius V did was to extend to the entire West the
traditional Roman Mass, as a barrier against Protestantism. Paul
VI, abolished the “Traditional Roman Rite” since his “pastoral”
aims were not for Catholics but for the Protestants. And in that
way, his “Novus Ordo” was but a “remarkable departure from
the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass” (Cardinals) Ottaviani and
Bacci in their “Brief Critical Review.”296 Even Osservatore Romano
(13 October 1967) announced: “The liturgical reform has taken a
remarkable step forward and has come closer to the liturgical
forms of the Lutheran Church.”

A liturgical turn that has all the flavor of a betrayal of the Faith! St.
Pius V retained the traditional Roman Rite, as surely Catholic.
Paul VI abolished the Traditional Roman Rite precisely because
it was Catholic, in order to introduce 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 it 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 the Calvary, nor does it believe in
the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist; and that is why in
their temples, 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 and

the Protestant conceptions of 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 the Lutheran thinking?

Let us give voice to the Protestants themselves.

Roger Mehl, Protestant theologian, in an article in Le Monde of

10 September 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 the 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 is the statement of doctor J. Moorman, Protestant

bishop of Ripon, and Anglican “observer” at Vatican II, who, 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’.”297

Another 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 asked the fathers of

Taizé: “Why are you saying that today you can adopt the new rite
and not the ancient one?”

Fratel Roger Schutz, superior of the community of Taizé, replied,

(because in the new) “the notion of sacrifice is nowhere clearly
affirmed.”298

Even the Superior Consistory of the (Protestant) Church of the

Confession of Augsburg of Alsace and Lorena, after the assembly
of Strasbourg of 8 December 1973, stated:

“We estimate that, in the present circumstances, the faith 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 for 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.”299

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…”300

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.

Not by chance Paul VI included in the “Consilium” entrusted

with the liturgical reform, six Protestant members, in representation
of the World Council of the Churches, the Church of England,
the Lutheran Church and the Protestant Community of Taizé.301

And that justifies the grave affirmation of cardinals Ottaviani and

Bacci, who, in their “Brief Critical Review of the Novus Ordo
Missae,” 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 at 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.’”
(The Lord’s Supper or the Mass, is the sacred assembly or gathering
together of the people of God, with a priest presiding, to celebrate the
memorial of the Lord. For this reason at the local assembly of the holy
Church eminently flourishes Christ’s promise: Where two or three are
gathered 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 continually repeated.304 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.

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. It implies,
in a nutshell, none of the essential dogmatic values of the Mass,
which constitute her true definition.

Hence the voluntary omission is tantamount to their supersedence,

and, at least in practice, to their negation305.

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 regards not at all the “Real
Presence,” Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, such as is found in the
Holy Eucharist. Thus binding that “promise” of Christ to the Mass
would signify that the Mass realizes only a spiritual, not the real
and sacramental, presence of Christ.
 That would be plenty to say that the definition of Paul VI’s Novus
Ordo is heretical. (And Paul VI, then?). However, after reading
that “Brief Critical Review” of the two cardinals, he had that
“paragraph 7” amended,306 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
“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” 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’.”

Is that not a departure from the bloodless renewal of the Sacrifice

of Calvary? 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 present only 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, who, speaking in fact of the new version of
paragraph (7), say:

“In spite of the new version, granted, in 1970, to the militant

reactionaries (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.”307

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” 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
does not involve the substance, and security from any
contamination of error, of any “de fide” dogma, as this is “ex sese
(of its own nature) irreformabile.”38

“Neque enim FIDEI DOCTRINA, quam Deus revelavit,.. velut

“Philosophicum Inventum,” proposita est humanis ingeniis
perficienda (!)... sed tamquam DIVINUM DEPOSITUM CHRISTI...
Sponsae tradita, fideliter custodienda et infallibiliter
declaranda...”309. (For the doctrine of the faith, which God revealed,
has not beenhanded 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 Vatican
II), but only MINISTERIAL CELEBRATION OF SACRAMENTAL
PRIESTHOOD.

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 participate actively in the Mass (as the rite itself
would be invalid), but only “concession,” on the part of the
teaching Church, to participate, through dialogue, in some
portions and prayers, of merely ceremonial value, but not to
those bearing an “official” and “Consecratory” value, sole
prerogative of the priest, validly ordained, conditio sine qua non,
to the “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....”

(And if, nevertheless, anyone would ever dare attempt any action
contrary to this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance,
command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and
prohibition, let him know 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
offer was explicated, 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-explication of
the Sacrifice is tantamount to the suppression of the central role
of the Real Presence. That “Real and permanent Presence” of
Christ, in Body, Soul and Divinity, is never hinted. The very
word “transubstantiation” is completely ignored.
 b) The “Consecratory Formulas”

The ancient formula of the Consecration was not a “narrative”

– as is that of the “new Mass” – but 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 Him 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 [the
only weak spot in the author’s case. Proper intention cannot take
proper effect outside a proper Mass. Proper intention is hardly
demonstrated by a celebrant in violation of canon 817 (1917
Code) which forbids consecration outside of Mass. The novus
ordo missae is by definition, not Mass.], 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.

With the Sacrosantum Concilium “Apostolic Constitution,”

besides, Paul VI gave the language of the Universal Church310
(against the will expressed by Vatican II itself) the final blow, stating
that “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.)

And so did he with the “Gregorian Chant,” which yet Vatican II

had acknowledged as “liturgiae romanae proprium,”311 ordering that
“principem locum obtineat.”312 (proper to the Roman liturgy) … (it
hold first place)
 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 gone lost. Just as
Luther did, when along with the Offertory he suppressed the
Elevation, eliminating, in this way, any notion of “Sacrifice.”

But 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 mimicked so

servilely? The only explanation one might venture, I believe, is
ecumenism, toward a more resolute rapprochement with the
Protestants. With that in mind, Paul VI invited the Protestants to be
part of the “Commission for Liturgical Reform.” But how was it
possible that Protestants – who do not share our same Faith –
could be invited to participate in a Commission for the
“Reformation of the Catholic Mass?” Paul VI, with his obsession
for “universal brotherhood,” for the sake of unity at any cost, had
intended, with that “Mass of his,” to erase the lines separating
Catholics from Protestants? If so, then his was a capital error, nay,
a blatant betrayal of the Catholic Faith. The true Christian unity
is realized only in the “integral truth,” in the perfect faithfulness to
the doctrine of Jesus Christ, which Peter transmitted to all the
successive Vicars of Christ. To vary from that is betrayal. Period!

The fruits derived from Paul VI’s “new mass” stand as eloquent
proof. I would never come to lay down my pen, were I to document
the countless scandals and sacrileges, “black masses,” obscenities,
perpetrated after Vatican II, precisely due to the “new liturgy.”

Naturally, not all the disorders can be ascribed directly to Paul VI.
They are, however, the fruits of his liturgical revolution, and of his
inexplicable tolerance of 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 re-consecration of the
profaned churches. The apathy, the scandalous indifference of so
great a portion of the 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 relegation of the Blessed Sacrament to a corner of the
church, almost hidden from the people; the disappearance of the
Ostensory, and the suppression, nearly everywhere, of the Hour of
worship, of the “Forty Hours,” of the processions of the “Corpus
Domini”; the standing reception of Communion; the abolition of the
genuflexions before the Blessed Sacrament, etc. They have all been
innovations that have diminished Faith in the Eucharist,
consequently, the esteem and love to Eucharistic Jesus, among both
clerics and faithful.

Why? Could anyone claim it was all unintentional?

Paul VI’s treatment of the traditional doctrine on the Eucharist in

his encyclical “Mysterium Fidei” certainly does not play into his
defense for all that he has done, favored and tolerated. Nor will
citation of the “Conciliar Constitution on Liturgy,” for many of his
directives paved the way to the arbitrary and to confusion.

As these “facts” demonstrate:

- On September 21, 1966, Paul VI authorized Miss Barbarina

Olson, a Presbyterian, to receive Communion, at her wedding
Mass, in a Catholic church, without requiring the abjuration of
her previous errors, nor confession, nor any form of profession of
Faith.313

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 Upsala at the “Ecumenical
Council of the Churches”; that of Vaugirard (Paris); an inter-
communion, the latter, Paul VI would then disapprove, if only for
the form.314 In July, 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 that Catholics
could participate in the Protestant celebrations. Since then 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 had he really believed in it, he would not have granted
those permissions to 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 so far as to place on his finger a pastoral
ring – symbol of jurisdiction, that is – and then begged him to bless
the crowd gathered at St. Paul Outside the Walls. [Basilica in Rome]

Now, that was a gesture that beaconed 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.
And so did the Episcopalian Deans of the United States and Canada,
come to Rome for the Holy Year, who 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 23315.

***

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 homes!”

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 quasi a 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 lead one to think ”…That truths,
always believed by the Christian people, might change or be
hushed up without infidelity to the holy doctrinal deposit the
Catholic Faith is bound to for all times,” one would stop 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”316…

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 of
PERENNIAL, finds in it but a diverse minor place, if at all”317…

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 by God.

Graver yet was that having reduced the Offertory into a mere
preparation of the gifts, along the lines of Luther, who 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
orations of the Catholic Church. It is theologically possible.”318

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 revolutions 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.”319

In any case, that giving more value to the altar than to the
Tabernacle marked “… an irreparable dichotomy between the
presence, in the celebrant, of the Eternal Supreme Priest 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 dinner-
table.”320

But 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.”321

And so, in conclusion, we can say that the Novus Ordo Missae is
not a vertical cult, going from man to God, but a horizontal cult,
between man and man. The New Church of Paul VI is, as already
demonstrated, the religion of man, to the detriment of God’s glory.

Please note that:

(1) in the libera nos of the Novus Ordo Missae no mention is made
of the Blessed Virgin Mary or of the Saints. Their intercession,
therefore, is no longer invoked, not even at times of peril.322

(2) in none of the three new Eucharistic Prayers … is there the

tiniest hint of the 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.”323

(3) Paul VI’s Novus Ordo Missae is not even faithful to the
directives of the Council, but rather, it openly contradicts them,
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.” 324.

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 list the principal titles of points of departure and

non-observance of the principles set out by Vatican II itself:

- a new definition of the Mass;

- a suppression of the Latreutic element;

- a paucity of “orations of offering”;

- suppression of the Trinitarian formulas;

- elimination of important orations, both of the celebrant and of the

faithful;

- abbreviations of Angels and Saints;

- grave dogmatic shortfall of the new “Eucharistic prayers”;

- the weakened position of the celebrant;

- the change of the religious ornaments and of the religious

countenance of the faithful;

- the free spaces for the autonomous “creativity” of the celebrant;

– etc...

***

It is impossible, therefore, to adduce as evidence that the form

impressed upon the “Ordo Missae” had been based upon the
indications of Vatican II. And the fact that the Bishops, after
attending that “normative Mass” which Paul VI had had presented
to them, rejected it, stands as a further alarm signal.

It failed to reach the two thirds majority of the conciliar Fathers.

That “new Mass” is thus entirely Paul VI’s doing. Behind the
“Novus Ordo” stands only Paul VI with his “authority.”

It must be said, in addition, that the “Traditional Mass of St. Pius

V” was never legally abrogated, and remains, to this day [and
forever], a true rite of the Catholic Church, through which the
faithful can fulfill their holy day precept325 - because St. Pius V had
granted a perpetual indult (never abrogated), valid “for all time” to
celebrate the Traditional Mass, freely, legally, without any
scruples and without incurring any punishments, conviction, or
censure.326

Paul VI himself, in promulgating his Novus Ordo Missae, never

had any intention of involving Papal infallibility, as he himself
stated in his address of 19 November 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 English

cardinal 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.”327

Since the (1870) Vatican Council (dogmatic) established that:

“The Holy Ghost has promised the successors of Peter, not that they may
disclose new doctrine by His revelation, but that they may, with His
assistance, preserve conscientiously and expound faithfully the revelation
transmitted through the Apostles, the deposit of Faith.” (Pastor Aeternus,
July 18, 1870) 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 matter of obedience
(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 God329 prior than to man, if he intends to remain
inflexible in his profession of the Catholic Faith, according to the
infallible doctrine of “Tradition!”
 APPENDIX 1
THE OATH ON THE DAY OF HIS CORONATION

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

“EGO PROMITTO...

Nihil de traditione quod a probatissimis praedecessoribus meis

servatum reperi, diminuere vel mutare, aut aliquam novitatem
admittere; sed ferventer, ut vere eorum discipulus sequipeda, totis
viribus meis conatibusque tradita conservare ac venerari.

Si qua vero emerserint contra disciplinam canonicam, emendare;

sacrosque Canones et Constituta Pontificum nostrorum ut divina et
coelestia mandata, custodire, utpote tibi redditurum me sciens de
omnibus, quae profiteor, districtam in divino judicio rationem, cuius
locum divina dignatione perago, et vicem intercessionibus tuis
adjutus impleo.

Si praeter haec aliquid agere praesumsero, vel ut praesumatur,

permisero, eris mihi, in illa terribili die divini judicii, depropitius (...)
(p. 43 vel 31).

Unde et districti anathematis interdictioni subjicimus, si quis

unquam, seu nos, sive est alius, qui novum aliquid praesumat contra
huiusmodi evangelicam traditionem, et orthodoxae fidei
Christianaeque religionis integritatem, vel quidquam contrarium
annitendo immutare, sive subtrahere de integritate fidei nostrae
tentaverit, vel auso sacrilego hoc praesumentibus consentire.”

(Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum, p. 54 vel 44, P.L. 1 vel 5).

“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.”

(Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum,” p. 54 or 44, P.L. 1 or 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.330

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 nor 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 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,” Vatican II
declaration on religious freedom, which granted, de facto, to
any error whatsoever, rights that are the exclusive prerogative
of 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 contradicts
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, despite that patent condemnation of his predecessor,

confirmed “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, St. Peter’s, 7 December 1965. I, Paul VI, Bishop of
the Catholic Church).

Barefaced rebellion against Catholic doctrine! But such enormities

became norms of the New Conciliar Church, so much so that the
New Church held any missionary 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 Papacy,
during which there was no consequentiality of words and deeds to the
oath he had taken on 30 June 1963.

A Paul VI who betrayed CHRIST, CHURCH, and

HISTORY!

FIVE POINTED STAR:

symbol of hatred for God and religion
Had written Karl Marx: “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”331. 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 MAN332.

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, 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
most of anti-Christian 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 Enlightened of Bavaria, whose secret
program it had adopted, without changing a word, turning it into the
“Communist Manifesto” of 1848. Publication of the Manifesto was
financed by two Enlightened: Clinton Roosevelt and Horace
Greeley.

Marx belonged to the Cologne’s “Apollo” Lodge.333 Lenin was

initiated to Freemasonry by the “Union de Belleville” Lodge of the
Grand Orient of France.334 Trotsky entered Freemasonry in 1897.335

Lunaciarskij belonged to the Grand Orient of France.336 Mikhail

Gorbachev has been a member of the Masonic “Trilateral
Commission” since 1989,337 and even a member of the Masonic and
Satanic “Lucis Trust.”338 Igor Gaidar, leader of the “Russian
Choice” Party, belongs to the “Cooperation” Lodge.339 Edward
Shevardnadze, former Soviet Foreign Minister and current President
of Georgia, is the head of Georgian Freemasonry and has been an
affiliate, since 1992, of the “Magisterium” Lodge.340 Anatoli
Ciubas, head of the Yeltsin’s Administration, has been a member of
the “Cooperation” Lodge since 1993,341 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 1912342.

FIVE POINTED STAR:

THE MASONIC symbol
To Freemasonry, Symbology and ritual are “everything.” Wrote the
freemason Augusto Lista: “The Real initiation (…) lies entirely,
and I say ENTIRELY, in Masonic symbolism and ritualism.”343

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.”344

Of the myriad of symbols the freemason 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 & 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.

FIVE POINTED STAR: SYMBOL OF MAN

The central theme and dominating sign of Masonic symbolism is

Man. Man inspires the entire Masonic symbology: “All the rites,
fables, legends, myths refer to one and one subject alone: man.
The same is true with Masonic symbolism.”345

Now, the true “Spirit” is not the sentimental one, but the initiatic
one. The freemason, in the composition of the Square and of the
Compass – the most common symbols through which Freemasonry
is manifested – “sees” the Pentagram (or five-pointed-Star) both
inscribed and circumscribed346 (see figures on p. 291).

And, in its explicit representations, as in the underlying occult ones,

the Five-Pointed-Star outdoes, in consequence, all the others, even
for its capacity to express and symbolize the anthropological and
physical aspects, down to the most rooted and profound peculiarities
of human nature.

And so the Five-Pointed-Star, or Blazing Star, becomes to

Freemasonry the profoundest and holiest of its symbols.

States Guillemain de Saint-Victor, “The Blazing Star is the center

whence the light originates.”347 Writes Gédagle, “The Blazing Star
represents the light enlightening the disciples of the Masters (…); it
is, therefore, the symbol of Intelligence and Science.”348 In a
Masonic document, is read, “The Blazing Star is the emblem of
free thought, of the sacred fire of genius, which elevates man to
lofty achievements.”349

Wirth observes that the Pentalpha (...) is a magical symbol

referring to the powers of human will.350 In the dictionary of
Masonic symbols, the Five-Pointed Star signifies man.351

Writes the freemason Gorel Porciatti, The Blazing Star, appearing

to the Comrade vanquisher of the earthly attractions, is the star of
Human Genius; it has five points, corresponding to the head and to
the four limbs of Man; it is the Star of the Microcosm that, in
Magic, personifies the sign of Sovereign Will, that is, the
irresistible instrument of action of the Initiated. In order for it to
carry this value, it must be sketched out in such a manner that a
human person might be inscribed into it; it must, that is, have the
point pointing upwards.”352 The man within the Five-Pointed Star is
occasionally associated to the 7 symbols of the heavenly bodies.
Wirth, in his book “The Tarots,” explains that the amalgam of these
7 symbols form a monogram “linking to the devil.”

FIVE POINTED STAR:

“SEAL” OF THE MASONIC POWER

It is now clear why the programs of the sect are inscribed in its
symbology, and why it rarely omits to initial with its symbols its
initiatives and its triumphs, and, consequently, the historical
occurrences originating from its lodges, as well as the institutions
in which it wields its occult power. And it is precisely the five-
pointed Star, or Masonic Pentalpha, the symbol with which, more
frequently, Freemasonry is keen to mark its own conquests and
symbolize its own dominance.

In fact, it is the very Star that covers the flag of the United States of
America. It is the very Star that symbolized the Bolshevik
Revolution; the very Star that appeared on the emblem of the Red
Brigades; it is the very Star that appeared on the emblem of the
former Italian Communist Party (PCI) and on that of the former
Democratic Party of the Left (PDF) [name assumed November 24,
1989 by Italian Communist Party]; it is the very Star that stands
out on the Chinese, Cuban, North Korean, Vietnamese, Algerian,
Tunisian, Moroccan, and Somali flags, and on the flags of most
nations, as well as on the insignia of the Republic of Italy.

The five-pointed Star appears on the emblems of the United States

army, as on the Russian and Chinese armies. The Star stands out
also on the Medal of the Order of the October Revolution, the high
honor formerly bestowed upon Heads of States and Ambassadors;
and on the Medal of the Order of the Patriot War, bestowed upon
all the Soviets who fought in World War II.

Even the epaulettes on the collar of Italian military uniforms carry the
same significance. They were prescribed, in 1871, by the then
Minister of war, Cesare Ricotti-Magnai, who, as a good freemason,
had suppressed military Chaplains and Sunday Mass, “replacing the
cross of the Savoy with the Masonic Star.”353 His “sister” Maria
Rygier of the French Lodge “Human Right,” wrote in a book, on
this subject: “… (Freemasonry) has given Italy her most precious
treasure: the holy Pentalpha, and has wanted that the Blazing Star
were placed in good stand on the uniform of her soldiers, doubtless
because the magical virtue of the blood, shed for the Homeland,
would vitalize the august pentacle.”354

Recently, Avvenire355 magazine, too, in a brief article emblematically

titled: “Masonic Star in the Square of the Palace,” speaks of the
restoration of the magnificent Papal square before Montecitorio
Palace [Italian Parliament] “embellished” with a “wealth of five-
pointed Stars, that is, the most important and most widely known
symbol of Freemasonry.” And “That Star has been shining ever
since the unity of the Nation was realized by Freemasonry against
the Catholic Church.” The circumstance is recalled, with exemplary
clarity, also by Civiltà Cattolica magazine of 1887. Which reads:
“The five-pointed-star ‘is the lucky star Freemasonry presented
Italy with, and, with insolent sectarian effrontery, imposed upon
the armed forces, and planted on the pillars before the building
of the Finance Ministry in Rome, and sneaked in everywhere,
even on the coat-of-arms of the Republics and of the Monarchies,
on shop signs, on the necklaces of shallow ladies, on the caps and
toys of children’.”

FIVE POINTED STAR:

ON THE FOREHEAD OF THE BAPHOMET
The five-pointed-Star shines on the forehead of the “god” of
Freemasonry, the “Baphomet.”

Alphonse Louis Constant defines the Baphomet356: “The Beak of

the Devil.” He then affirms, “Let us say boldly and resoundingly
that all of the initiated to the occult sciences have worshipped,
worship and will always worship that which is signified by that
symbol”357.

Father Rosario F. Esposito writes that the Baphomet “Was carried

in procession during the initiation rite of the 29th degree (Grand
Scottish of St. Andrew, in Scotland) and it is object of pseudo-
adoration in numerous female initiations. The ceremonies that
were once celebrated in his honor were the same of phallic
character celebrated in honor of the Apis Ox”358.
Writes the freemason John Symonds, “abjure the faith and
abandon yourself to all the pleasures (…) Glorify the Baphomet;
he is the true god! Renounce Christianity and do as you
please!”359

Thus the Baphomet would be the god of base morals. No only. The
five-pointed-Star would then be the symbol of that foul “morals.”
It is the freemason Gorel Porciatti to say it: “(The five-pointed-
Star), when turned upside-down becomes the symbol of the
bestiality of the foul instincts; in it, so upturned, one can inscribe
the head of a beak (the head of the Baphomet!)”360.

The freemason Jules Doinel, founder of the Gnostic Church, in his

book “Lucifer Unmasked,” is even more explicit: “The ‘Blazing
Star’ is Lucifer himself”; and he adds that, to each of the points of
the Star, corresponds one of man’s five senses: “The eyesight is the
perception of the Luciferian world. The sense of smell is of the ‘good
Luciferian odor’. The touch is the perception of the demoniac action
upon flesh and spirit. The taste is the anticipated perception of the
Satanic bread and wine which, later on, the Rosa Cross knight is to
break up and drink at the supper of the 18th degree. The hearing is the
perception of the voice of Satan.”361

The freemason Alphonse Louis Constant, in his book “Ritual of

High Magic,” writes: “This Star indicates the presence of Satan
and of the light he radiates onto Freemasonry.”

FIVE POINTED STAR:

SYMBOL OF THE CULT OF MAN
In an excerpt of the Secret Instruction, given by the Unknown
Superiors of Freemasonry to general Giuseppe Garibaldi,362 we read:
It is thus essential, to you, Brother (…) that you do not forget that, in
our Order, no degree unveils the Truth completely; it only renders
the veil that hides it from the gazes of the curious a little thinner. To
Us, invested with the supreme power, to Us alone, it strips it bare,
and, inundating our intelligence, our spirit and our heart, it makes us
know, see, and perceive that:

1 • Man is, at one time, “GOD,” “PONTIFF” and “KING” OF

HIMSELF. That is the “sublime secret,” the “key to every
science,” and the “apex of the initiation.”

2 • Freemasonry, perfect synthesis of all that is human, is thus

“GOD,” “PONTIFF” and “KING” OF HUMANITY. And now it
deploys its universality, its vitality, and its power.

3 • As for us, grand Masters, we form the holy Battalion of the

sublime Patriarch that is, in turn, “GOD,” “PONTIFF” and
“KING” OF FREEMASONRY.

Here, Brother, is the THIRD TRIANGLE, the THIRD TRIPLE

TRUTH which will give your intelligence, your mind and your heart
the ineffable happiness of the absolute possession of the Truth
without veils.

(…) The total teaching of the 33 degrees of the Scottish Rite of

Freemasonry is contained in this passage: “Man is, to himself, God,
Pontiff and King: he is similar to God.”

Now, this self-divinization of man constitutes the first “triple

truth”: the FIRST TRIANGLE. The second “triple truth” is the
self-divinization of Freemasonry: the SECOND TRIANGLE. The
third “triple truth” is the self-divinization of the Heads of
Freemasonry: the THIRD TRIANGLE.

That is the deepest and most jealously kept secret by the echelon
of Freemasonry. What now remains to be underscored is that this
truth without veils, namely, the self-divinization of Humanity, of
Freemasonry, and of the Battalion in command, constitute the
three triple truths that, represented by the three gilded triangles,
mutually intertwined, compose the five-pointed-Star.

The cult of Lucifer, thus manifested in the Secret Instructions or in

Freemasonry’s most reserved documents, is, nonetheless, presented

publicly almost invariably under the more presentable form of

religion of man or religion of Humanity, or – which makes no
difference – as cult of Man or cult of Humanity. Freemasonry
makes no mystery of being promoter of this Satanic religion.

The French politician and freemason Viviani, insisted on this point:

“(We must) substitute the ‘religion of humanity’ to the Catholic
Religion.”363

Wrote the high initiate Tommaso Ventura: “Authentic Freemasonry

(…) reveals a new vision of History; it is Humanity renewing itself
that equilibrates the classes, brings the Nations together, and brings
redemption to all, not in heaven, but on earth.364

The Masonic magazine Monde Maçonnique made the following

statement: “Freemasonry makes us know that there is but one
true religion and, as a consequence, but one natural religion:
THE CULT OF HUMANITY.”365
In the work “The Deification of Humanity, or the Positive Side of
Freemasonry,” Father Patchtler demonstrated rather well the
significance Freemasonry gives the word “humanity,” and the use it
makes of it.

That word – says he – postulates:

1) The absolute independence of man in the intellectual, religious

and political domain; 2) denies for him any supernatural end; 3)
affirms that the purely natural perfection of the human descent
be headed for the avenues of progress. To these three errors
correspond the three stations on the way of evil: 1) Humanity
without God; 2) Humanity that makes itself God; 3) and
Humanity against God.

Such is the edifice Freemasonry wants to build through its religion of

Humanity or cult of Man; the five-pointed Star is the dynamic
symbol of this path toward the Satanic aim of the man-god.

THE FIVE POINTED STAR:

ON THE BRONZE HAND OF PAUL VI
On the “bronze door” when inaugurated, on the “Leaf of Good” in
panel 12, there appeared the Vatican II Ecumenical Council: four
Conciliar Fathers between John XXIII and Paul VI.

However, while John XXIII and the other four conciliar Fathers
were sculpted face forward, Paul VI (last to the right) was sculpted
in profile, so as to show plainly his left hand bearing 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, the responsibles
of 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.

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
had been executed unbeknown to him and without his approval, since
he was to bless it on his birthday, as later published in a Special
Insert of the Osservatore Romano, for his eightieth birthday366, and
precisely with that satanic mark on his hand, a signature, as it
were – and not uncommon – of his Pontificate.”

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 surfacing, then to give shape to a mosaic that lay
bare Paul VI’s incredible and unspeakable approach toward
Freemasonry, following 250 years of excommunications,
admonitions, punishments, and after about 200 documents of the
Magisterium 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.”367

The Church never entertain 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 on this odd aspect of Paul VI’s

personality, we list a few of the facts and remarks relating to his
person368:
 1) In a Masonic magazine, it is read: the Grand Master
Gamberini, on the very day of the announcement of Montini’s
election to the Pontificate, said: “Here is our man!”

2) Paul VI’s obituary, published by former Grand Master of

Palazzo Giustiniani, Giordano Gamberini, Rivista Massonica
Magazine369: “To us it is the death of him who made the
condemnation of Clement XII and 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.”370

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 into Italy,

such as divorce, abortion, 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 (triregno)

on the altar, definitively renouncing it - the objective of the French
Revolution. The freemason Albert Pike wrote: “The inspirers, the
philosophers, and the historical chiefs of the French Revolutions
had sworn to overthrow the ‘CROWN’ and the ‘TIARA’ on the
tomb of Jacques de Molay.”371
 6) In the Holy Land (1954) on the Mount of Olives, Jerusalem,
Paul VI embraced 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, together with him, “blessed” the crowd.

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 mortgaging, syncretistically, of the “Ecumenical
Movement” of Assisi. And while Paul VI always refused to
receive the Catholics of Tradition, he continually welcomed the
members of the Masonic Lodges, such as of the High Jewish
Freemasonry of the B’nai-B’rith and of L’Alliance Israélite
Universelle, which aims at 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 4 October 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
Religion.372

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 out
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 in an
Ecumenical Council shall undergo a transformation that will put
it in harmony with the state of modern civilization.”373 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, in primis 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,” who are to involve

themselves with the “social” and abandon the supernatural.

And so on along this line.

And thus Freemasonry, with Paul VI, had penetrated not only
the grass-roots Church, but also the echelons of the Vatican, both
clerical and secular - conceded at the highest levels.374 It suffices to
read chapter IV (His Opening to Freemasonry”) of our book,
“Paul VI… beatified?” to realize this fact.

***

Who, then, was Paul VI? It will suffice to recall that Paul VI had
opposed to Pius XII’s “political-religious line” 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.”

Paul VI’s betrayal stands before the tribunal of History.