by Pauly Fongemie
March 12, 2013

This presentation is prompted by your recent homily in which you included a serious error promulgated from the Vatican --- as if formal doctrine --- that the Covenant with the Jews is still valid and by this they are saved, which is in contradiction of Church teaching.

Dear Father -----------,

While I was not surprised to hear this in your preaching, because so many of today's Catholics, both lay and clerical actually believe this error in good faith, I cannot let it pass for your good and for the good of all the souls under your care. Brother  --------- in his retreat introduction touched on the "new evangelization", which he partially defined as bringing the Faith once more to our fellow Catholics, not only those who are without the Church. He specifically mentioned that some of these Catholics in need of evangelization are "in the pulpits." Amen!

First, let us define matters and establish parameters so that we begin at the same starting point. This will have to be somewhat lengthy simply because there is no brief method in that there are so many critical details that cannot be neglected without failing in my duty.

Vatican II broke with all precedent in Church history because Pope John XXIII convened it as "a pastoral council" not a dogmatic one. He told us that no definitions would be forthcoming, but that the council was an approach or pastoral plan for confronting the problems with the modern world. He insisted that no anathemas would be issued, which is what occurs when doctrine is involved, such as the Council of Trent, which was in response to the Protestant revolution. The only sections of the documents of Vatican II that must be accepted with faith are those aspects that quote from a previous ecumenical council, all of which were dogmatic in essence, whatever the original reason for a particular council being called. Two examples are citations from the above referenced Council of Trent and the Council of Nicaea.

The Second Vatican Council was written in such manner that it managed, in keeping with the modern age of nuance and carefully worded heresy, to say contradictory things at one and the same time. "Time bombs" implanted that the insiders who would be doing the interpreting as "theologians" could use to propagate the "new Catholicism" as they hoped it would be.

Let me repeat:

Now since every utterance of a Pontiff or Council is not infallible, and both can err we can well ask how does this happen? The error occurs outside of the continuity of Apostolic Tradition or because a council does not invoke the protection of the Holy Ghost, but intends to be merely pastoral in its approach, such as the Second Vatican Council. Pope John  XXIII said with full deliberation that this Council was to be pastoral only and not for dogmatic definition or "anathemas" that result from such definition. He specifically spurned the giving of anathemas, so we know that dogmatic certainty was not the intention, and thus he was not invoking Divine protection as such.

What do I mean by infallible, that is, without error---dogmatic certainty? Essentially there are two forms, ordinary and extraordinary. The latter is a formal definition of a dogma or article of faith that must be believed and is given to the whole Church at once; sometimes the truth being defined has been held by the Church as a whole throughout Tradition, implicitly; it is not explicitly taught until the formal pronouncement, such as the dogma on the Assumption of Mary body and soul into Heaven. Such a pronouncement, if promulgated by the Pope, is called ex cathedra, or "from the chair". At other times the dogma, having already been explicitly taught, is being reasserted because it is under severe attack, a danger to the Faith. Such an example is Pope John Paul II's encyclical on the all-male priesthood, Ordinatio sacerdotalis, an example of ordinary infallibility while issued from the chair. Ordinary means it is derived from the continual teaching handed down from the Apostles and expounded on more fully but always directly linked to the received Deposit of Faith, sometimes referred to as de fide. The teaching continues what has always been taught explicitly. This is why the Pontiffs use the term, "We" when they issue a teaching, as they intend to teach in union with what has been faithfully handed down and believed by the Church as a whole from the very beginning.

The key to the guarantee of infallibility in the ordinary exercise is continuity with Apostolic Tradition, and not a break or novelty. God will not be mocked and cannot honor that which violates what He gave to the Apostles to pass on to us. With the formal or extraordinary, the Holy Ghost acts in such wise as to permit only that which is certain and given to the Church by Divine mandate in a single issuance of a Pontiff or a Council. In practical terms both forms are equally infallible because both are completely consonant with Scripture and Tradition. It is merely the manner of the determinative expression that is different, hence, ordinary and extraordinary, meaning that, with extraordinary, one does not have to ascertain whether it comports with Sacred Tradition, because by definition it cannot be otherwise. The key of guarantee is in the form itself---with the ordinary means, one must ascertain whether the teaching deviates from Apostolic Tradition or not. Until Vatican II this was generally without a concern. Either a Pontiff or a Sacred Council can declare dogma in the extraordinary manner, just as both can do so in the ordinary way. However, in their ordinary duties and proclamations, the Popes and Bishops can teach error if they depart from Tradition. Any such declarations that contravene Tradition are not infallible and not only are we free to disregard it, we have a duty to do so, for we are bound to observe and hold to Tradition at all times as the Apostles, Saints, Fathers and Doctors of the Church insist. And a Council, such as Vatican II, which was not called as a doctrinal Council enjoys no such guarantee of infallibility. This does not mean that everything it teaches is false or with error, only that it risks error by virtue of its pastoral or non-doctrinal approach. Some of Vatican II satisfies the requisites for ordinary infallibility such as those parts that reaffirm definitions from the Council of Nicaea, for instance.

Now someone might interject, well what about in vitro fertilization? Doesn't the Church forbid this practice as evil? This was not always taught from the beginning.

Remember, the operative word is "comport" or "direct", i.e., grows naturally and necessarily out from another, ever-taught doctrine or dogma. A doctrine is a body of teaching that flows from a dogma and a dogma is revealed truth that must be believed, either theological or moral. Now the Church has always taught the sanctity of life, the purpose of marriage and the rights and duties of the husband and wife and their offspring. In vitro fertilization is a recent medical procedure and could not have been condemned before it was known to exist. Where did the ban originate from? From the doctrine on marriage and procreation. Every child has an absolute right to be conceived in a natural manner and sinful means cannot be used. A woman may not have relations with a man not her husband in order to conceive a child, for example, because her husband is sterile. In vitro is accomplished not from the marital union of the man and woman, in of themselves, but from the sin of Onan in part, among other evils [the "discarding" of some the children conceived in the petri dish, commonly called "embryos"]. Now the purpose for which most couples use this means is worthy ---to have a child, for the sake of the child alone, but because the means to accomplish it is intrinsically disordered or forbidden by God, no amount of good intentions can render what is per se evil, good. Many Catholics are confused about this because they mistakenly believe that every good couple has an absolute right to a child. In no way is this true. Children are gifts from God and this is why, until the modern age, many children were considered a blessing and barrenness a curse. It is up to God, not us. Now, medicines can be used to correct malfunctions and diseases just as surgery to remove a tumor can be undergone. These do not involve the actual marriage act at the time of its occurrence. This act must be natural in every way. In vitro involves the willful disruption of the natural marriage act. Period. The man has to commit a mortal sin even before the procedure is begun. The Church has always taught this doctrine on procreation in general and thus the prohibition regarding in vitro, a specific case, comports directly with it. Pope John Paul II's teaching on in vitro fertilization is infallible in the ordinary way. While it was also from the chair as it was his declaration, it was not considered extraordinary in that it was plainly a continuance of an already established body of doctrine. He was not making a formal definition.

In other words, the Pontiffs and Sacred Councils in union with the Popes, cannot teach anything new in essence, but are bound to hand down the Apostolic Tradition [including Scriptural interpretation] without departure or else risk the wrath of God through personal and even widespread social chastisement.

In those instances where error is permitted or indirectly taught through imprudent speeches and actions, our duty is to resist, while respecting the Vicar of Christ in his office and authority. Just as no court can legitimately order you and me to kill an innocent person in cold-blood, no Pope can force us to accept error or to endanger the faith.

It must be noted that Pope John Paul II had to keep pleading with us to "interpret Vatican II in the light of Tradition." This must mean that although this Pontiff was very much a man of Vatican II, having been one of its periti, he recognized what had occurred despite all the optimism of Pope John XXIII. The Holy Spirit cannot, will not permit any Pontiff or Council to formally bind the consciences of the faithful in matters of doctrine [faith] and morals in such wise that they believe in that which is inconstant, deviating from Apostolic Tradition, which precedes Sacred Magisterium and Sacred Scripture. Thus the Holy Spirit infused into John Paul II the urgency to plead with us who were subjected to all this nonsense and worse that had gotten out of hand. Even Pope John XXIII became aware that something had gone awry, saying in woe, "This is no longer my council." He was genuinely perplexed and grieved. Of course he failed to recognize that essentially the mess was his own doing in that he acted recklessly by convening a non-doctrinal council, giving the impression that the pastoral and the doctrinal are mutually exclusive, when they are so intimately intertwined and interdependent by their very nature. This false impression was all that the revolutionaries needed to proceed with all abandon and daring --- an arrogance without shame. Archbishop Bugnini, the main architect of the Novus Ordo, would go on to claim in triumph, "Catholicism was been conquered." He was not exaggerating in his heady zeal for altering the faith through a Protestantized Mass approved of by Protestants who did not convert, supposedly the reason for the change, which was actually only the purported one; disastrous change itself was the actual purpose and any pretext that appeared plausible would do. All the "reformers" as they styled themselves were liberals and dissenters, some of the more prominent periti, outright heretics. Perhaps this was the Holy Spirit's way of protecting the faithful: since the Council would be hijacked by the dissenters and implemented by them and fellow theologians, the laity would be on notice that since there was "no doctrine defined" they were under no obligation to accept in faith the Second Vatican Council except when quoting from previous councils.

This is parameter #1, i.e., that any so-called utterance of any Church authority, even at the top, if not in keeping with Apostolic Tradition and the perennial teaching of the Church, must be evaluated by Tradition and that unchanging teaching, which is, after all, Truth.

Parameter # 2, [text in red] which are really restatements from the Popes, Saints, and Councils about the need to not veer from Sacred or Apostolic Tradition [emphasis in bold added by me]:

The Church must persist in the teaching transmitted to her by Christ.
Pope John Paul II

Our teaching may contain nothing impious, nothing diluted.
St. Gregory Nazianzen

I cannot sufficiently be astonished that such is the insanity of some men, such the impiety of their blinded understanding, such, finally, their lust after error, that they will not be content with the rule of faith delivered once and for all from antiquity, but must daily seek after something new, and even newer still, and are always longing to add something to religion, or to change it, or to subtract from it!
St. Vincent of Lerins

The nature of the Catholic faith is such that nothing can be added to it, nothing taken away. Either it is held in its entirety or it is rejected totally. This is the Catholic faith which, unless a man believes faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.
Pope Benedict XV

Fly to the Catholic Church! Adhere to the only faith which continues to exist from the beginning, that faith which was preached by Paul and is upheld by the Chair of Peter.
St. Hippolytus of Rome

This Apostolic Church never turned from the way of truth nor held any kind of error. It is imperative that nothing of the truths which have been defined be lessened, nothing altered, nothing added, but that they be preserved intact in word and meaning. This is the true rule of faith.
Pope St. Agatho the Wonderworker

I hold most firmly, and will hold until my dying breath, the faith of the Fathers on the certain rule of truth which is, has been, and always will be found in the succession of the bishops descended from the Apostles.
Pope St. Pius X

And I hold it not with the understanding that a thing can be held which seems better and more suited to the culture of a certain age, but in such a way that nothing else is to be believed than by the words; and I hold that this absolute and unchangeable truth preached by the Apostles from the earliest times is to be understood in no way other than by the words.
Oath Against Modernism

Diabolical error decks itself out with ease in lying colors with some appearance of truth, so that the force of pronouncement is corrupted by a very brief addition or change, and the confession of faith which should have resulted in salvation, by a subtle transition leads to death!
Pope Clement XIII

God's Word is one and the same, and, as it is written, "The Word of God endures forever" unchanged, not before or after another, but existing the same always.
St. Athanasius

The present or "current" teaching of the Church does not admit of a development that is either a reversal or a contradiction.
Pope John Paul II

Let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further!
St. John Chrysostom

Change nothing; be content with tradition.
St. Cyprian

The preaching of the Church truly continues without change and is everywhere the same. It has the testimony of the Prophets and Apostles and all their disciples.
St. Irenaeus of Lyons

Therefore, no one is allowed to profess or to write up or compose or devise or teach a different faith.
Council of Chalcedon

God forbid we should falsify our faith!
St. Aithalas

Heretical teachers pervert Scripture and try to get into Heaven with a false key, for they have formed their human assemblies later than the Catholic Church. From this previously-existing and most true Church, it is very clear that these later heresies, and others which have come into being since then, are counterfeit and novel inventions.
Pope St. Clement I
Let nothing novel be introduced!
Pope Pius XII

"Avoid the profane novelty of words," St. Paul says (1 Timothy 6:20) ... For if novelty is to be avoided, antiquity is to be held tight to; and if novelty is profane, antiquity is sacred.
St. Vincent of Lerins

The ancient doctrines must be confirmed, but novel and absurd inventions must be condemned and cast aside.
St. Cyril of Alexandria

The devil is always discovering something novel against the truth.
Pope St. Leo the Great

Father, we can, of course, come to a deeper understanding of a doctrine, such as happened with the Holy Eucharist, but any such "change" as such is to be understood as always in the same context and with the same meaning, thus it is not a change of definition, but one of deeper penetration of the one and same revealed truth. Pope St. Pius X reiterated this age old safeguard of the truth by stating in regard to doctrine and any supposed change: "
same sense and with the same interpretation."

Now we look at the third parameter, having established without any doubt that Church teaching cannot change, which is the teaching of the Church on the Jews and the Covenant in particular and on Salvation in general as well as what the Church teaches about the duty of society with regard to the rights of God:

Council of Florence: "the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains".

 Pope Pius XII: "And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area - He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the House of Israel - the Law and the Gospel were together in force; but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. "To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as Our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom." On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, in order to give way to the New Testament…" (Mystici Corporis Christi, 29).

I will  resubmit this citation from Mystici twice more for emphasis within the body of this piece.

 Council of Florence: "[The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the Old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our Lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came
to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning. Whoever, after the Passion, places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits himself to them as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally.
Galatians: 4: 21-31: "Tell me, you that desire to be under the law, have you not read the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, and the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bondwoman, was born according to the flesh: but he of the free woman, was by promise. Which things are said by an allegory. For these are the two testaments. The one from mount Sinai, engendering unto bondage; which is Agar: For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia, which hath affinity to that Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But that Jerusalem, which is above, is free: which is our mother. For it is written: Rejoice, thou barren, that bearest not: break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for many are the children of the desolate, more than of her that hath a husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he, that was born according to the flesh, persecuted him that was after the spirit; so also it is now. But what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son; for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman. So then, brethren, we are not the children of the bondwoman, but of the free: by the freedom wherewith Christ has made us free".

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors #15: Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true – Condemned.

Pope Pius XI: "The foundation of this power and dignity of Our Lord is rightly indicated by Cyril of Alexandria. "Christ," he says, "has dominion over all creatures, a dominion not seized by violence nor usurped, but his by essence and by nature." His kingship is founded upon the ineffable hypostatic union. From this it follows not only that Christ is to be adored by angels and men, but that to him as man, angels and men are subject, and must recognize his empire; by reason of the hypostatic union Christ has power over all creatures. But a thought that must give us even greater joy and consolation is this that Christ is our King by acquired, as well as by natural right, for he is our Redeemer. Would that they who forget what they have cost their Savior might recall the words: "You were not redeemed with corruptible things, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled." We are no longer our own property, for Christ has purchased us "with a great price"; our very bodies are the "members of Christ." Let Us explain briefly the nature and meaning of this lordship of Christ. It consists, We need scarcely say, in a threefold power which is essential to lordship. This is sufficiently clear from the scriptural testimony already adduced concerning the universal dominion of our Redeemer, and moreover it is a dogma of faith that Jesus Christ was given to man, not only as our Redeemer, but also as a law-giver, to whom obedience is due. …It would be a grave error, on the other hand, to say that Christ has no authority whatever in civil affairs, since, by virtue of the absolute empire over all creatures committed to him by the Father, all things are in his power. … Thus the empire of our Redeemer embraces all men. To use the words of Our immortal predecessor, Pope Leo XIII: "His empire includes not only Catholic nations, not only baptized persons who, though of right belonging to the Church, have been led astray by error, or have been cut off from her by schism, but also all those who are outside the Christian faith; so that truly the whole of mankind is subject to the power of Jesus Christ." Nor is there any difference in this matter between the individual and the family or the State; for all men, whether collectively or individually, are under the dominion of Christ. In him is the salvation of the individual, in him is the salvation of society. "Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved" (Quas Primas).

 Pope Leo XIII, Libertas: "This kind of [false] liberty, if considered in relation to the State, clearly implies that there is no reason why the State should offer any homage to God, or should desire any public recognition of Him; that no one form of worship is to be preferred to another, but that all stand on an equal footing, no account being taken of the religion of the people, even if they profess the Catholic faith. But, to justify this, it must needs be taken as true that the State has no duties toward God, or that such duties, if they exist, can be abandoned with impunity, both of which assertions are manifestly false.

Pius X: "That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies… Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. …. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. (Vehementer Nos)

 Pope Leo XIII: "[I]t is manifest that the eternal law of God is the sole standard and rule of human liberty, not only in each individual man, but also in the community and civil society which men constitute when united. Therefore, the true liberty of human society does not consist in every man doing what he pleases, for this would simply end in turmoil and confusion, and bring on the overthrow of the State; but rather in this, that through the injunctions of the civil law all may more easily conform to the prescriptions of the eternal law. … Therefore, the nature of human liberty, however it be considered, whether in individuals or in society, whether in those who command or in those who obey, supposes the necessity of obedience to some supreme and eternal law, which is no other than the authority of God, commanding good and forbidding evil. And, so far from this most just authority of God over men diminishing, or even destroying their liberty, it protects and perfects it, for the real perfection of all creatures is found in the prosecution and attainment of their respective ends; but the supreme end to which human liberty must aspire is God" (Libertas).

Pope Leo XIII: "Nothing more foolish can be uttered or conceived than the notion that, because man is free by nature, he is therefore exempt from law. Were this the case, it would follow that to become free we must be deprived of reason; whereas the truth is that we are bound to submit to law precisely because we are free by our very nature. … But many there are who follow in the footsteps of Lucifer, and adopt as their own his rebellious cry, "I will not serve"; and consequently substitute for true liberty what is sheer and most foolish license. Such, for instance, are the men belonging to that widely spread and powerful organization, who, usurping the name of liberty, style themselves liberals" (Libertas 7,14).

 Pope Pius IX: "From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching liberty of perdition…" (Quanta Cura).

 First Vatican Council: "For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding".

Pope Leo XIII: "And, since it was necessary that His divine mission should be perpetuated to the end of time, He took to Himself Disciples, trained by himself, and made them partakers of His own authority. And, when He had invoked upon them from Heaven the Spirit of Truth, He bade them go through the whole world and faithfully preach to all nations, what He had taught and what He had commanded, so that by the profession of His doctrine, and the observance of His laws, the human race might attain to holiness on earth and never ending happiness in Heaven. In this wise, and on this principle, the Church was begotten" (Satis Cognitum).

 Pope Gregory XVI: Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.’ Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: ‘He who is for the See of Peter is for me.’ A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: ‘The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root’? This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. ‘But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,’ as Augustine was wont to say" (Mirari Vos).

 Pope Pius IX: "A similar object is aimed at by some, in those matters which concern the New Law promulgated by Christ our Lord. For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion" (Mortalium Animos).

Pope Pius X: [It is an error to hold that] "The Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion" (Syllabus of Errors, #21).

Pope Pius IX: But some are more easily deceived by the outward appearance of good when there is question of fostering unity among all Christians. Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity? Who would dare to say that he loved Christ, unless he worked with all his might to carry out the desires of Him, Who asked His Father that His disciples might be "one." And did not the same Christ will that His disciples should be marked out and distinguished from others by this characteristic, namely that they loved one another: "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another"? All Christians, they add, should be as "one": for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength. These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually repeat and amplify; and these men, so far from being quite few and scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying doctrines concerning the things of faith. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed" (Mortalium Animos).

Father, these are infallible declarations.

In other words, the Pontiffs and Sacred Councils in union with the Popes, cannot teach anything new in essence, but are bound to hand down the Apostolic Tradition [including Scriptural interpretation] without departure or else risk the wrath of God through personal and even widespread social chastisement. [Repeated from before, again, for emphasis.]

This is the way of mankind, especially those in the Church, who heed not the warnings from Tradition and abandon the Apostolic Tradition, our sure guide when we are tempted to doubt or prefer our own inclinations in the matter of doctrine and or morals.

In the words of Prof. Plineo de Oliveira:

"There is no reason for a problem of conscience. When a Pope sins, when he does something bad or wrong, his position as Pope does not change the nature of the action. It is bad. No papal infallibility is involved.

"How can one know when something is wrong? He needs only to check with the prior teaching of the Church. If the constant teaching of the previous Popes, Moral treatises and sentire cum Ecclesia [thinking with the Church] taught differently, the new Pope acted against Catholic doctrine and did something bad. And the Catholic faithful in the times of the Renaissance had sufficient means to reject those bad actions of the Popes."

This holds true today. Now there are some who maintain that such a Pope or Bishop would lose his office if he fell into heresy, not just permitted sinful actions or ideas or informally promulgated them through imprudent or rash speeches, such as the ones by the Pontiff on China and evolution. We know otherwise from the history of the Church. The best example I know is Pope Honorius I. He was a notorious heretic regarding the Personhood of Jesus Christ. Since no layman or bishop or priest can nullify the Pope's right to sit on the Chair of Peter, nor judge his rightful authority, except another Pope, which is Church doctrine, it was up to a subsequent Pontiff to do so if inspired and permitted by the Holy Ghost. Such a Pope was Pope Leo II. Both Popes reigned in the 7th century. Pope Leo declared Honorius a heretic in union with a Council, and the ecclesiastical ordinances he promulgated in the name of heresy or under its influence were abrogated, declared null and void on their face. Pope Leo had the authority in his own right to do so and he exercised it, but along with the assembled Bishops. He also held the authority [alone] to declare Honorious an anti-Pope, which he did not do. Why? Because Honorius did not attempt to impose the heresy in a formal manner, binding the faithful. Please take note that I wrote "attempt" because the Holy Ghost would never permit such a thing. We have Christ's promise, an absolute guarantee. God may permit Popes who are weak, but not the formal promulgation of heresy imposed on the Church under pain of sin! Another similar case is that of the Arian bishops. Few of these lost their offices and the priests they ordained were held to be valid priests by subsequent Popes who were not under the spell of the renegade priest, Arius. Infallibility was never involved and the indefectibility of the Church was maintained as it must until the end of time.

Now for the heart of the matter, the Covenant of the Jews and its supposed salvific validity today or, in other words, has the Old Covenant been revoked? We know from above that the Church teaches that it has been. But since there appears to be a lot of doubt on this important aspect concerning salvation and all together too much ambiguity coming from Churchmen, let us examine some salient points and to do this we have to make necessary distinctions:

First, let's distinguish between two different old covenants: one that God made with Abraham (the Promise), and another that God made with Moses (the Law). And in consonant with these the distinction between "Israel according to the flesh" (1 Cor. 10:18), and what St. Paul calls "the Israel of God" (Galatians 6:16). We will end this portion of my article by looking at what must be described --- if we are honest --- as a diabolical form of anti-Semitism being promoted by high-ranking prelates in Rome.

The two Old Covenants are: an immutable Covenant that was fulfilled and never revoked, and a temporary Covenant that was fulfilled and then rendered null.

The first is that which God made with Abraham. This Covenant contains a temporal promise and a spiritual promise and its essence is one of generational or natural life.  The second is one of supernatural life or regeneration, that is directly concerns salvation. I will be drawing upon an article by Robert Siscoe in Catholic Family News, March 2013, titled, Has the Old Covenant Been Revoked? The author stresses that there has been two decades of ambiguity on this matter and that one of his purposes is to clear away the debris from our hearts, minds and eyes, that we might once again be cognizant of actual Church teaching on the Covenant since Apostolic times.

The temporal promise was that God would give to the descendants of Abraham the land of Canaan (Genesis 15: 18). The Old Testament records this promise descending from Abraham to his son Isaac (Gen. 17:21), and then from Isaac to his son Jacob, and finally through Jacob to all of his posterity (Gen. 28:3-4).

Later we know that Jacob's name is changed to Israel (Gen. 35:10). This is why the Jews, who are the descendants of Jacob are referred to as "the children of Israel", or simply as "Israel", or, as St. Paul calls them, "Israel according to the flesh" (1 Cor. 10:18).

The temporal promise God made to Abraham was fulfilled: "And the Lord God gave to Israel all the land that He had sworn to give to their fathers: and they possessed it and dwelt in it" (Josue 21:41).

The Spiritual Promise concerns the particular seed that would be born from the children of Israel. We know this from St. Paul to the Galatians, in which the Apostle explains that the seed God was referring to was Christ: "To Abraham were the promises made and to his seed. He saith not, 'and to his seeds', as of many: but as of one, 'and to thy seed', which is Christ" (Gal. 3.; 16).

Jesus, is not only the natural seed of Abraham, as are all the other children of Israel: He is also the seed of God --- God Incarnate --- who would save His people from their sins. Jesus, the King and Savior of mankind, is the literal fulfillment of the promise God made to Abraham. St. Paul explains that those who are baptized in Christ become one with Christ, and heirs according to the Promise. He wrote:

For you are all children of God by faith, in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek ... For you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you be Christ's, then you are the seed of Abraham, heirs according to the Promise" (Gal. 3:26-29).

Jesus was the fulfillment of the Promise God made to Abraham, and all who are members of His mystical body are heirs according to that Promise. Therefore, the Covenant God made with Abraham was never revoked, but rather fulfilled in Christ.

The Mosaic Covenant is the latter type of covenant, fulfilled but then rendered void once it was completed, thus we say the covenant was temporary, not immutable as the first made with Abraham.

Between the time God made the Covenant with Abraham and its fulfillment in Christ almost two thousand years later, God established a separate temporary Covenant with the children of Israel. This is the Covenant God made with Moses on Mt. Sinai (Exodus 19-24) four hundred and thirty years after the Covenant with Abraham (Gal. 3:17). The Mosaic Covenant, which is often referred to simply as the Law, is what the term "Old Covenant" traditionally refers to. The purpose of this Covenant was to signify and prefigure Christ, the Promised One, and the New Testament He would establish. It also served as a temporary "schoolmaster" (Gal. 3:23-25) until God's Promise to Abraham was fulfilled. St. Paul tells us:

"To Abraham were the promises made... Now this I say, that the testament which was confirmed by God, the [Mosaic] law which was made after four hundred and thirty years, doth not disannul, to make the Promise of no effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise. But God gave it to Abraham by promise. Why then was the law? It was set because of transgressions, until the seed should come, to whom He made the Promise... (Gal. 3:16-19).

Our Lord lived under the Old Law, obeyed its precepts and fulfilled its types, and rendered it null by His death, "fastening it to the cross" (Col. 2: 14). He then established the New Testament in His Blood, for the remission of sin (Mt. 26:28), replacing the Mosaic Law with "the law of Christ" (1 Cor. 9:21). St. Paul wrote: "And therefore is He [Christ] the mediator of the New Testament, that by means of His death ... they that are called may receive the Promise of eternal inheritance" (Hebrews 9:15).

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ott, we read:

"On the Cross, Christ consummated the building of the Church. The Old Covenant ceased and the New Covenant sealed with the blood of Christ began." (Pg. 292)

I stress a reference above from Ven. Pope Pius XII:

In Mystici Corporis Christi, Pope Pius XII confirms that by the death of Christ the Old Law was rendered null:

And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area - He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the House of Israel - the Law and the Gospel were together in force; but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. "To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as Our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom." On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, in order to give way to the New Testament…" (Mystici Corporis Christi, 29).

In fact, dear Father, the Jewish Talmud, believe it or not, confirms that the Old Law was rendered null with the death of Christ on the Cross. I will quote the Jewish convert, Roy Schoeman, who explained it in an interview he gave in December of 2003:

"Most Christians are aware of the many ways in which the Old Testament supports Christianity's claims that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, but few are familiar with the passages in the Talmud ---- a strictly Jewish 'scripture' based on oral tradition and written down several centuries after the death of Jesus --- which do the same thing. I discuss about a half dozen of these passages in my book. Probably my favorite is the 'Miracle of the Scarlet Thread.' Shortly put, the Talmud recounts that when the Temple stood in Jerusalem, the sins of the Jewish people were taken away each year on one day, Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year, when the High Priest would enter the Holy of Holies with a sacrifice to atone for the sins of the people for the preceding year. Each year, a scarlet thread was affixed to the entry to the Holy of Holies, and miraculously, when the sacrifice within was accepted, the thread would turn white as a sign that the sins had been forgiven. Well, the Talmud recounts that, for no clearly identifiable reason, the miracle ceased to take place about 40 years before the destruction of the Temple. In other words, after about 30 A.D. the thread never again was turned white! We know, as Christians, that that was precisely when the Temple sacrifices lost their' efficacy --- at the moment of the Crucifixion, about 30 A.D., when, as a sign of the fact, the curtain in the Temple was rent in  two. The Council of Florence teaches that not only is the Old Law null and void, but those who seek to be justified by it sin mortally:

"[The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the Old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our Lord Jesus Christ Who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the New Testament had their beginning. Whoever, after the Passion, places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits himself to them as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ. without them could not save, sins mortally. It does not deny that from Christ's Passion until the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been retained, provided they were in no way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation." (Cantate Domino)

Pope Benedict XIV taught the same: "the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law were abrogated by the coming of
Christ and... they can no longer be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel." (Ex Quo Primum #61)

St. Thomas explains why it is a mortal sin to practice. the Old Law:

Question: Whether since Christ's Passion the legal ceremonies can be observed without committing mortal sin?

I answer that, All ceremonies are professions of faith, in which the interior worship of God consists. Now man can make profession of his inward faith, by deeds as well as by words: and in either profession, if he makes a false declaration, he sins mortally. Now, though our faith in Christ is the same as that of the fathers of old; yet, since they came before Christ, whereas we come after Him, the same faith is expressed in different words, by us and by them. For by them was it said: 'Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,' where the verbs are in the future tense: whereas we express the same by means of verbs in the past tense; and say that She 'conceived and bore.' In like manner the ceremonies of the Old Law betokened Christ as having yet to be born and to suffer: whereas our sacraments signify Him as already born and having suffered. Consequently, just as it would be a mortal sin now for anyone, in making a profession of faith, to say that Christ is yet to be born, which the fathers of old said. devoutly and truthfully, so too it would be a mortal sin now to observe those ceremonies which the fathers of old fulfilled with devotion and fidelity" (I II; Q 103, A4).

This teaching of St. Thomas explains why Catholics should not take part in a Seder Meal, which constitutes active participation in a false religious ceremony, and therefore is equivalent to a false profession of faith.

In the two decades following the publication of the Vatican II documents, some 16 in all, our local priests were instituting Seder meals for us, in direct violation of this proscript from the Church, which holds up St. Thomas as its main theologian and source in the matter of doctrine. One could say they were innocently in error, and indeed, that may well have been the case; but since they are priests who lead us, their responsibility to know Catholic truth is much more burdensome than that belonging to the laity. They should have known. In my opinion the New Mass and the errors of Vatican II led to such spiritual blindness that they simply could not see as they should have --- a chastisement by God Who was obviously displeased, much like He was with the Israelites who abandoned the proper worship He required of them and turned to the fable of the Golden Calf; they, too, were punished with death of a type. Spiritual blindness and hardness of heart in pride are true deaths.

Now that we have established what the Church has constantly and must ever teach about the nullity of the Covenant as a salvific entity, what does She teach in regard to salvation for any and everyone? This teaching is eminently summed up by

The Official and Infallible teaching of the Catholic Church on Salvation

     Ex Cathedra: There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved. [Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215]

     Ex Cathedra: We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. [Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302]

     Ex Cathedra: The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his Angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the Sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church. [Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441]

Furthermore, the Church's infallible teaching on the doing away of the Old Covenant and the sole validity of the New is declared in the encyclical Mystici Corporis, issued in 1943 by Ven. Pius XII who teaches thus, with references to both Pope Leo the Great and Saint Thomas Aquinas, emphasis in bold added by me: Note that because he is teaching to the whole Church and is saying what the Church has always taught at all times that the encyclical is infallible, not just an encyclical per se, such as one issuing a probable opinion to a group of bishops in a country:

"And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law, which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area----He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the House of Israel----the Law and the Gospel were together in force; but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees [referring to Judaism] and fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. 'To such an extent, then,' says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, 'was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as Our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.' "

Now some object that this is too hard a saying as did some of Jesus' disciples did on the Eucharistic teaching of Christ. They particularly object to that contained in the Papal, infallible bull, Cantate Domino. He, of course referred to those who are not invincibly ignorant; context is important and Pope Eugene was clear if one reads the entire bull. For those who object because they only know the excised quote, we add this citation in bold because it  is so important to understand, also it is in context so that no one need fear. The Roman Pontiff was addressing those who did not accurately perceive the complete teaching on salvation:

On Dec. 9, 1854, Pope Pius IX declared: "We must hold as of faith that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge. We must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are in invincible ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord." On August 10, 1863, he further said: "Those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law graven by God on the hearts of all men, and who, being disposed to obey God, lead an honest and upright life, aided by Divine grace, attain to eternal life."

By this he means, that if a person truly desires the gift of faith, which is what being disposed to obey God honestly and uprightly ["other sheep"] refers to, that aided by Divine grace --- God wills that all men be saved --- this man will come to receive the true gift of faith; in other words, in some manner not necessarily seen or understood by us mortals, such a man will be received into the bosom of the ark of salvation --- the Holy Catholic Church, even if only at the last minute of his earthly life by miraculous means if need be --- as St. Peter was given a stream of water drawn forth by an Angel under the command of God while the first Pontiff was in prison. Thus, he had the means to Baptize those under sentence of death and even some of their jailors, all of whom had desired Baptism. If Baptism is not necessary as the Church has constantly taught, then the desire alone would have sufficed. However the means Christ the Good Shepherd employs for the salvation of such individuals is up to Him when the ordinary course of events appear closed off, at least in our eyes,  we know that He will  bring those into His fold: "And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd." [St. John 10:16]

This includes the Jews.

To do and say otherwise is a virulent form of anti-Semitism, for it essentially abandons the Jew who becomes bereft of missionary efforts on his behalf, in fact, tells him that we care more about the world's opinion than we do his everlasting happiness in Heaven. It is the perennial teaching of the Church that is truly solicitous on behalf of the Jew, is the true work of authentic fraternal charity.

I want to conclude by addressing your mentioning the conversion of the Jewish people, which is true, but in the misapplied context from the error stemming from Vatican II  theologians, one could misapprehend the situation in its entirety. I cite now from Fr. Denis Fahey, The Kingship of Christ and the Converison of the Jewish Nation:


There is a tradition in the Church that the Jewish people will be converted when the Nations shall have ceased to be Catholic by falling into apostasy. The two Fathers Lemann have treated of the question at some length in their joint work, La Question du Messie et le Concile du Vatican. They have done so in the form of a commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, XI, 20, 21,22, 25, 30, 31. It will be interesting for my readers to have a brief outline of their teaching.

St. Paul warns the non-Jews not to be boastful but to fear lest a fate similar to that of the Jews befall them: "Be not high-minded, but fear. For if God hath not spared the natural branches, fear lest perhaps He also spare not thee" A little further on he continues: "For I would not have you ignorant, brethren, of this mystery (lest you should be wise in your own conceits). For as you also in times past did not believe God, but now have obtained mercy, through their unbelief, so these also now have not believed, for your mercy, that they also may obtain mercy." The Fathers Lemann quote with approval the statement of a learned commentator to the effect that it would have been quite natural for St. Paul to have added, after the last words cited: "When you shall have fallen into incredulity." The tenderness of St. Paul for the Gentiles, however, prevented him from adding that phrase, but several Fathers of the Church have expressed the thought in their commentaries.

"Israel's failure to correspond," says Origen, "has been, the occasion of the calling of the Gentiles. We have taken their place and thus have become the true Kingdom of Juda. But our last times will resemble those of the Jews because of our sins, in fact they will be worse."

 "From the sin of the the Jews," writes St. Jerome, "has come the salvation of Nations, and from the incredulity of the Nations the knowledge of the Truth will again come to Israel. These two truths are in St. Paul."

"St. Paul," writes in his turn St. John Chrysostom, "explains divinely the conduct of God with regard to men.  He says that the Gentiles have been called by God, but because, little by little, they will show themselves unmindful of His favours, God will recall the Jews a second time." The Fathers Lemann cite also the Commentary of St. Augustine on Psalm VII, and finally, the words of the great French orator, Bossuet: "Have we not reason to tremble on seeing how severely God has punished the Jews for so many centuries, since St. Paul  warns us on the part of God that our ingratitude will bring upon us a similar punishment?"

"God's aim, however, is not punishment but mercy, and when he will have called back the Jews, He will also recall the non-Jewish nations, utilizing the missionary zeal of the repentant Jews for that purpose. "For God hath concluded all in unbelief, that he may have mercy on all. O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God." Seeing that the apostasy of the nations from Christ the King has been very largely their work and that of their satellites, the Freemasons, the Jews will be heartbroken, and will put their splendid natural qualities at the service of Divine Love, in order to undo the evil of the past and to draw the whole world into the unity of the Mystical Body of Christ. "There are two outstanding qualities in our national character," write the Fathers Lemann, "vivacity of sentiment and tenacity of will. Liveliness of sentiment we certainly have, for our nation never hates or loves anything in weak or feeble fashion; in love as in hatred it goes to extremes. And tenacity of will we have also; for forty centuries we are awaiting Him Whom we are meant to love. Now when Divine Grace shall have taken hold of this vivacity and of this tenacity, when our eyes shall be opened, when as a body we shall see that He Whom we have been expecting so long has already come, and that He has been waiting for us for twenty centuries with outstretched arms: when we shall See as clear as noonday that we have had the misfortune to crucify Him. Then, there will be amongst us, as it were, an explosion of love. And we shall arise and begin all over again our journeys through the world. Where the Wandering Jew has passed, the Jew become Apostle will pass once more. The grief of our repentance will not be hidden in the silence of a confessional, but will show itself in the light of day before all the peoples of the earth, like our denial at noon on Good Friday. The prophet Zacharias saw this outburst of grief: 'And I will pour out upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of prayer; and they shall look upon me, whom they have pierced; and they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for an only son, and they shall grieve over him, as the manner is to grieve for the death of the first-born.'
"In order that the repentant Jewish nation may work for the conversion of the peoples of the Orient and the return of the apostate nations of the West to Christ the King, there must be a certain interval between the conversion of the Jewish nation and the end of the world. Some interpret the words of St. Paul: "what shall the receiving of them be but life from the dead?" in the sense that the General Resurrection and the Last Judgment will follow the conversion of the Jews immediately. "As the reprobation of the Jews," writes Pere Lagrange, O.P., "was the occasion of the reconciliation of the world, their conversion will be as it were, the signal for the consummation of the world and the advent of a new one. It must, however, be admitted that the expressions employed are not very precise and that one could not establish a definite relation of time between the Conversion of the Jews and the General Resurrection from the dead, in other words, affirm that the Last Judgment will follow closely on the conversion of the Jews."

However we know with certainty, Father, that is, infallibly, that they will convert, oh yes! But not because of the Covenant but because of repentance.

All of the above I have written to you I believe with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength and even as I send this on to you for your prayerful perusal and consideration I would gladly, joyfully, prayerfully die for! Father I love Holy Mother Church, and all her constant teachings and because I do with such reverence, I reject, abhor all lying novelty because it is from the bowels of the synagogue of Satan to borrow from Scripture!

Yours most sincerely in Christ the King and Our Lady of Fatima,
Pauly Fongeme

Post Script:

I leave you with this thought for consideration. A number of our priests over the years have taught that "doctrine changes" over time. Well, Father, if this is true, and all the past Popes and Councils were in "error" which this bromide of nonsense implies, than certainly the promoters of doctrinal "change" can also be in error and some future prelate or priest will make the same claim over and over again in an never-ending cycle per human nature. In other words, there is no objective truth according to them, but all truth is subjective, in that it depends on the age and the milieu of the times --- the needs of the people, etc. Think about this, Father, if there is no objective truth [meaning unchanging by definition], for this declaration to stand as true itself, it, in of itself, must be objectively true or else I am free to interpret as I, an individual, want to, which violates the very standard the proponents of changing "truth" want for their own definition of truth. If truth can be subjective, then, by definition and necessity of being, there can be no principle that truth is subjective in the objective sense. In other words, something cannot both be and not be at the same time. This is sheer hypocrisy and fallacy without par. Those who are willing to dismiss this self-contradiction can be reasonably held to be suspect as to motives because it speaks of insincerity so loudly and plainly that only a person who wills not to see what he does not want to see could avoid it.

Please note that the thrice repeated teaching of Ven. Pope Pius XII is by deliberate design, in keeping with the Biblical tradition of three times for something significant, such as Our Lord asking St. Peter, Peter, do you love Me? and he in turn responding each of the three times. This is my way of saying Yes, Lord, I, too love Thee, enough to risk being disliked, rebuked, admonished and marginalized as if nothing; for to obey Thee in all things is in fact, to ask to be nothing, nothing at all, that Thou will be the Great All Thou art, O God of my heart!

With much love as always,

HOME  ----------------------  THE CATHOLIC FAITH