Impide Vampirestat

lunes, 11 de junio de 2018

Why I am hardly democratic

by Vladimir Volkoff
(Continued)

Translated by Roberto Hope from the Spanish translation of
Pourquoi je suis moyennement démocrate. (éditions du Rocher, 2002)



Chapter IV

Because a majority should not be confused with a consensus.

Innocently or deliberately, proponents of democracy maintain a permanent confusion of the notions of majority and consensus. Phrases such as «France has decided that...» or «The Frenchmen have resolved to...» are deliberately contrary to the truth when such decisions have been taken by a majority of 51% of the voters. Since some proportion of abstentions and blank votes occur in any voting operation, it should be evident that, in fact, a 51% majority is in no way an actual majority, and much less a consensus,

This raises at least three questions. That it may be difficult to find the answers to them is no reason to excuse us from posing them.

In the first place, given that certain countries which boast of being democratic require a two thirds majority, not just one half of the votes plus one, for certain measures to be adopted, we can conclude that the notion of a relative majority actually exists, and on the other hand, since majorities in totalitarian countries could reach 99% of the votes — which arouses on the part of observers some legitimate suspicion about voting freedom — how can there be a proportion of votes which may legitimately be called a consensus, not just a majority?

In the second place, to the extent that a nation is a historical reality, at least as much as it is a geographical one, is it of justice that only the opinion of those citizens which happen to be alive at a given time, be the one that counts? Should not the wills of the founders of such nation and the interests of future citizens be also taken into consideration?. Even though it is undeniable that adapting to new circumstances is necessary as these arise, is there no flippancy in affirming that «France wants» such and such when it just wants it today, when yesterday it wanted just the opposite and when tomorrow it will want something different still?  Let me be clear here, I am not proposing to have the dead vote, nor the children yet to be born. I simply want to bring forward the confusion generated between the will of a millenary nation and an ephemeral, circumstantial majority.

In the third place, should we really believe as I have heard being claimed, that the soul of a democracy lies in the display of good will of the minority when it subordinates to the majority? The idea is not lacking in greatness, but, does it not, at least in certain cases, lack seriousness? That Louis XVI should have been condemned to death by a five-vote majority, that the Third Republic should have been established by a one-vote majority, that the Treaty of Maastricht (which was the equivalent of relinquishing sovereignty) should have been adopted in France by a 51% majority of the votes cast. does not inspire in me much confidence on the validity of these acts, even and especially from a democratic point of view.

Before decisions of grave consequences, is there no glibness in preferring the abstract theory defining what is a majority, over the concrete reality which offers divergent opinions?

Chapter V

Because of a matter of vocabulary

The meaning of the word democracy has evolved with the passage of time. Let's see the definitions given in some dictionaries:

Furetière, 1708: «Popular State; form of government where the people have all of the authority and in which sovereignty resides in the people, who makes the laws and decides everything, in which the people be consulted»

Boiste, 1836 «Sovereignty of the people, popular government (in the bad sense), popular despotism; subdivision of the tyranny among several citizens»

Littré, 1974 «Government in which the people exercise the sovereignty: Free and above all egalitarian society in which the popular element has a prevailing influence. State of society which excludes all constituted aristocracy except monarchy. Political regime in which the interest of the masses is favored or pretended to be favored. The democratic party, the democratic part of the nation.»

Nouveau Petit Larousse, 1917: «Government in which it is the people who exercise the sovereignty

Petit Robert, 1972. «Political doctrine according to which the sovereignty should belong to the citizens as a whole; political organization (frequently a republic) in which it is the citizens who exercise this sovereignty»

You can notice the slipping: from a «form of government» (Furetière), you first arrive at «sovereignty» (Boiste, Littré, Larousse) and finally to a «doctrine» (Robert). The examples provided bear witness to the same evolution, each time more favorable to the democratic idiosyncrasy.

Furetière adds: «Lycurgus compared democracy to a house in which there were as many masters as there were servants». 

Boiste reconciles Voltaire with Rousseau sharing the same skepticism for the opposite reasons: «A pure democracy is only fitting for the gods» (J.J. Rousseau). «Pure democracy is the despotism of the rabble» (Voltaire)

The Petit Larousse invokes Pericles, an a priori likable character who according to it «organized democracy in Athens»

The Petit Robert has no qualms about insuflating the reader with what he ought to think: «Democracy rests on the respect of freedom and the equality of citizens» In the meantime, what has occurred? A linguistic catastrophe. Democracy has lost its antonym «aristocracy» which has ceased to be «government of the best» to signify nothing more than a «superior social class»

Let´s go back to the same dictionaries to find the article on aristocracy.

Furetière: «Type of political government which rests on the principals of the state, be it on account of their nobility, or on account of their ability and integrity. In Venice, in Genoa and in Luca, it is only noblemen who govern by right of birth. But because of the laws of aristocracy in Lacedaemonia, virtue exclusively was considered,.and the right to govern depended upon 1) merit, 2) election. Ancient authors of Politics preferred aristocracy over any other form of government.

Boiste «Sovereignty of various noble or privileged men, government of the powerful, of the wealthy, nobility, privileged class, superiority of any kind (aristocracy of birth, of the wealthy, of the gifted)».

The Nouveau Petit Larousse of 1917 no longer sees in aristocracy anything other than the «Class of the nobility, of the privileged»

While that of 1972 defines it with greater precision as the «government exercised by the class of the nobles» before adding the current sense of «Class of the nobles, of the privileged», and while the Petit Robert also takes into consideration the old sense, the current use has practically forgotten that aristocracy originally meant the «government of the best».

The result of this game of pass-it-on is quite clear: democracy, government of the people for the people, is converted into an unavoidable and undeniably positive notion about which nothing but goodness can be thought. Its most spread and reviled in advance antonyms are totalitarianism and fascism, which turns out to be paradoxical since all twentieth-century totalitarianisms claimed to be governments of the people and for the people; that is, democratic

Chapter VI

Because of another matter of vocabulary.

Democracy is the government of the people. Be it by the people. Let us admit it. For the people. Better. But I do not know what the people be, what the devil is the people, and I believe that the confusion has been deliberately maintained by the partisans of democracy.

The confusion seems to be a triple one.

Before anything, it is numerical. I know what is one person, what are two, three, one thousand persons. But beginning at what number of persons do they get to become «the people»? And how can a more or less extended group of persons be assigned a collective face? Herein lies a sleight of hand operation consisting in substituting a quantity of different and quite real persons by a single, perfectly imaginary person. That is well seen in English, where the word people calls for a plural verb but nonetheless is perceived as singular. The American people feel that..., want to ..., have decided ....

Consequently, the confusion is social. Valéry is right in pointing out that «the word people ... designates the indistinct wholeness which one cannot find anywhere, as much as the majority of individuals as opposed to the restricted number of more fortunate or better-cultivated persons». The people is, as it may be more convenient, either the nation or the masses, and you never know of which of the two it is being talked about. Furetière had already specified in its article on Democracy that «in this sense, the term people is not the rabble but the whole body of all citizens» and de Flers and Caillvallet were not wrong in maliciously saying «democracy is the name we give to the masses every time we need them». These comings and goings between the idea that the «lower people» (or more kindly) the «common people» is different from the so-called upper classes, and the idea that these upper classes also form part of the people taken as a whole (which is not a serious matter considering that they are lesser in number) these comings and goings say I also allow all kinds of sleights of hand and substitutions.

All in all, there is a confusion between the relative and the absolute. Expressions such as «the people want» «the people decide» «the people are in favor of» properly signify nothing. It should be said: «the majority of citizens who have expressed their opinion have pronounced themselves in favor, have pronounced themselves against». But at the moment I have an opinion contrary to that of the majority, I feel the language is being abused when they say that the people (it goes without saying that they refer to all of the people, without exception) has this or that opinion but not mine. But I also belong to the people! The matter gets particularly obnoxious when «the people» is not more than 51% of the people, as we have seen in the chapter about majorities and consensus. When the Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1789 postulates that «Law is the expression of the general will» it is formulating a contradiction. There is no, there cannot be any, general will; at most, there is nothing more than majority wills.

Some words about «the opinion of the people» speciously called «public opinion» are appropriate here. In fact, no public opinion exists, or rather the expression should not exist, given that the sum of the individual opinion cannot conform a collective opinion. But, alas, the phenomena of rumor, of fashion, of mimicry, and the use that propaganda and disinformation make thereof to fabricate a fictitious collective opinion make individuals who boast of having their own mind adhere to it blindly for fear of appearing not to be solidary. In particular, the polling procedure tends to reinforce the opinions assigned «on the people» or rather rented, as nothing in this world is free.

In short. the notion of the people does not appear to be sufficiently defined as to want to rest a system of government on it.

Chapter VII

Because the concept of democracy rests on a petition of principle.

I can do nothing better in this chapter than quoting Jean Madiran, who wrote in Les Deux Démocraties «democracy is good because goodness is democracy, democracy is just because law is democracy, democracy goes in the direction of progress because progress consists of the development of democracy»

Enlightening!

Unbeatable!

Chapter VIII

Because it is sought to be turned into a religion

Democracy, which was, let us recall, one way among many, of designating rulers, is presented to us as a kind of religion, even a religion of religions.

And it has the essential part of a religion, the pretension of monopolizing the truth. In a religion, this can be understood.

Without necessarily having the ambition of exterminating all those that are not Christian, or all those that do not practice the Christian religion exactly like us (regardless of the fact that we did not refrain too much from this over the centuries), we Christians believe that God is triune, that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God, that this is true, and that consequently all those who believe the opposite are wrong. (We believe this where it is supposed we should believe it: if we repudiate this belief, we cease to be Christian.)

On their part, Muslims believe there is no God but God, that he never had a son and that Mohammed is his prophet. If Christians are right, then Muslims are wrong, and vice-versa. We must add that Muslims have the duty to cut the throat of the infidel, whereas we Christians do not customarily do it other than for an excess of zeal, although the principle is the same; if they presume to have the monopoly of truth so do we.

If, as some claim these days, all religions are worth the same, then this is because they are not religions.

The monopolization of truth in politics, whether justified or not, is less understood; a minimum of this so much lauded tolerance by the supporters of democracy ought to be sufficient to admit that the different procedures to designate rulers should be equally worthy, especially if geography and history are taken into account. But here is where modern democracy strips bare its pretensions of attaining the status of a religion; it is no longer a sister of designating rulers, it has become a body of infallible and compulsory doctrine and has a catechism: the rights of man, and outside the rights of man there is no salvation.

Modern democracy possesses other notes indispensable for any religion:
  • A paradise, the liberal democratic nations, preferably with an Anglo-Saxon legislation.
  • A purgatory: the dictatorships of the left
  • A hell. the seditionist dictatorships of the right.
  • A regular clergy: the intellectuals in charge of adapting the Marxist theses to liberal societies.
  • A secular clergy: the journalists in charge of disseminating this doctrine.
  • Religious services: the great television programs
  • A tacit index, which forbids taking notice of any work the inspiration of which is considered reprehensible. This index becomes admirably efficacious under the form of a conspiracy of media silence, although sometimes a more draconian way is utilized, even though they do not yet end up in the stake, some books judged to be deficient from a democratic point of view are removed from school libraries, as happened in Saint-Ouen-L'Aumône.
  • An inquisition: No one has the right of expressing himself if he is not rightly aligned with the democratic religion, and if he nevertheless gets to do it he will pay the consequences. In this regard the media lynching to which Regis Debray was subjected in France (nobody would suspect him of not being democratic) just because he cast doubts about the legitimacy of the war crimes carried out by NATO in Yugoslavian territory in 1999.
  • Congregations for the propaganda of the faith: the offices of disinformation, the self-denominated «communication» or «public relations» desks
  • Sunday masses, and bishops who use sundry protection shields borrowed from the various NGOs or the UN.
  • Diverse forms of indulgences. generally granted to old communists.
  • A criminal law and courts charged with punishing anyone who dares put the official version of history in doubt.
  • And even troops charged with evangelizing the non-democrats «by means of iron or fire» We have seen it clearly when we witnessed nineteen democratic nations bombing a sovereign state with which they were not at war.
Today, a phrase such as «in the name of the rights of man» is spreading just as «In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost» had spread over many centuries. Maybe we have rescued the sense of the sacred, but I do not believe this is a sacred thing of any high grade.

Chapter IX

But in fact, it is idolatry.

Democracy lacks a factor which is essential to any religion, whether true or false: transcendence.

This transcendence may acquire any form one may wish, from metempsychosis to apocalypse, but in all cases, it supposes that man venerates something which is beyond man. And so? Say what you wish but the rights of man cannot go beyond man They are, by definition anthropocentric.

To me, and I say it straight to the point, the notion itself of «rights of man» constitutes a nonsense, not only because it rests on a postulate but because the postulate is badly expressed.

One can understand that a Patagon indian should have the rights granted to him by his Patagon chief, or that the French should have the rights which are guaranteed to him by his republican government or that a club member or patient in a hospital or a customer in a restaurant may have the rights guaranteed to him by such restaurant, such hospital or such club. But that man should have rights in the absolute, that he g|uarantees them to himself by means of newspaper declarations, whether national or international — a matter which customarily is of little worth — seems to me, sorry if I scandalize you, a giant joke.

Young children play this kind of games «You will be the Father and I will be the Mother» or «you will be the sailor and I will be the admiral». With a similar spirit, playful expressions such as «right to health» or «right to happiness».can be understood. Now, given that such expressions cannot prevent people to become unhappy or get sick, it doesn't seem to me that they may have the least shade of reality.

I take the Declaration of 1789 and ask myself about affirmations as the following:
  • «The end of society is the well being of everyone» What is the well being of everyone? Give me a definition that is not the aggregate of the well being of the individuals.
  • «All men are equal by nature» Really? the big ones, the small ones, the beautiful and the graceless?
  • «The law is the free and solemn expression of the general will» Alright. And what, if you please, is the general will?
  • «The crimes of the representatives and agents of the people in no case should remain unpunished. No one can pretend to be more inviolable than the rest of the citizens» It would be fine if this could be applied well, or if it could even be applied! Let us laugh, oh my contemporaries, you who do not swear but for immunity or amnesty!
I take the Universal Declaration of 1948 and read there that «all human beings should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood» Attention, they should! Are we talking of a right or of a duty? And, in name of what is such a duty established!
  • «No one shall be subjected to torture...» The future tense implied in the verb is touching. It reminds me of «you will be the father and I will be the mother»
  • «The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government» Once more, is it not too much to suppose that the people have a collective will?
  • «this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures» In other words, people have rights as long as the only way they chose to designate their rulers is Democracy. Is this not a prohibition of other forms of government rather than a right? Again, on account of what is this prohibition established?
  • «The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State» And if society favors the concubinage of pederasts, and if the State remunerates the makers of lesbians...?
I do not deny that some of the ideas supporting this gibberish have a certain seducing power, but to signify something, it seems to me they should be expressed in the form of concrete duties rather than abstract rights, and, on the other part, they should be founded on an authority beyond that of man´s, and never on humanity which is nothing but the aggregate of all men, now living, who have ever lived or who are called to live.

Dostoievsky had already said it «If God does not exist, then everything is permitted» And if men arrogate God´s right to say what is good and what is bad, nothing good can come out of it.


(To be continued)

lunes, 4 de junio de 2018

Why I am hardly democratic

by Vladimir Volkoff

Translated by Roberto Hope from the Spanish translation of
Pourquoi je suis moyennement démocrate. (éditions du Rocher, 2002)

Chapter I

Because of my spirit of contradiction
Yes, I admit it. If democracy were just one more system among others. if it were not imposed upon us as an evident and obligatory panacea, if it were seen in it nothing more than a way of electing rulers, I would be better disposed to find qualities in it.

Jean Dutourd asserts that virtue begins with a spirit of contradiction and I, on my part, add that such a spirit is necessary to conserve impartiality: it maintains love for independence of judgment, ensures the rebellion against everything gregarious and vulgar and, in short, constitutes something certainly more agreeable than submitting oneself to the fashions, to snobberies, to conformisms of any sort. I loathe the yes-men, the politically correct, without I — God forbid — being infected by the idolatry of rebellion.

If the scale tips too much to one side, my spontaneous reaction is to put some weight on the other pan.

Chapter II

Because even as a way of electing rulers, democracy is not all advantages.
As a system of designating rulers, democracy presents some evident advantages, which actually can be reduced to a single, though important, one: the acquiescence of the governed. No question of denying that herein lies a superiority over regimes where rulers are designated in other ways, such as birth, fortune, chance or merit.

But there is also no reason to disregard the practical disadvantages of this procedure.

In the first place, rulers designated by a majority of voices cannot, in any case, feel equally responsible with respect to the people who voted for them, as compared to those who voted for another candidate. In fact, if they sought the public welfare in opposition to the interests of their own faction we would not be wrong if we branded them ungrateful.

In the second place, to be designated by a majority, it is necessary to seduce voters, but it turns out to be quite questionable that the qualities necessary for the latter and those necessary to govern — which have something of an antinomy — can be found in the same individual. At the limit, you could say that he who has the most possibility of being elected is the one with the least possibility of being a good ruler.

In the third place, the sort of person desirable to be elected is not necessarily the one deserving the greatest degree of confidence on the part of voters. Aristotle was not wrong in saying that the demagogue and the courtesan belong to the same species.

Chapter III

Because climates, peoples, and times differ
Solon was once asked what was the best political regime. He retorted: For what people?

Indeed, a considerable dose of naiveté is necessary to imagine that an ideal political regime exists which is perfectly convenient for all peoples, for all ages and for all nations, or even that it turns to be for all peoples, at all times and places, the least bad of all systems. Taine was not wrong when he applied three coordinates to every event: race, environment and time.

In no way do I pretend to say that democracy is always bad. I readily recognize that, in certain circumstances, it can be more convenient than other systems. Saint Augustine was of the same opinion, as stated in his Treatise on free will, quoted by Saint Thomas Aquinas "If a people is reasonable, serious, very vigilant in its defense of the common good, it is well to enact a law allowing such a people to appoint themselves their own magistrates to administer their public affairs. Nevertheless, if such people eventually degrade themselves, if their vote becomes something venal, if they hand the government over to scandalous or criminal persons, then it will be convenient to withdraw from them the faculty of conferring honors, and return to the judgment of a small group of good men."

In short, democracy is no panacea nor is it an antidote, there is no reason to condemn it or to canonize it a priori.



(To be continued)

lunes, 28 de mayo de 2018

Antonio Gramsci and his Influence on the Cultural Revolution in our Time.


Taken from: http://itinerariummentis1.blogspot.mx/2012/10/antonio-gramsci-y-su-influencia-en-la.html

Translated from the Spanish by Roberto Hope

Degradation of the culture and values in our time


The degradation of our culture and values in our time, in the pursuit of a single way of thinking and a new world order, forms part of an intelligent strategy devised by Antonio Gramsci.

1. - Who was Antonio Gramsci?

He was an Italian politician and thinker, one of the founders of the Italian Communist Party.
He was born in Sardinia in 1981 in a very poor family
Attended the University of Turin from 1911 to 1914 and abandoned his studies because of health problem
Together with Emilio Togliatti, he founded the Ondine Nuovo daily,in 1919, which later became the organ of the Italian Communist Party founded by him.
From 1921 to 1924, worked for the Socialist International in Moskow and in Vienna.
Returns to Rome in 1925 and opposes Benito Mussolini´s dictatorship. Was arrested in 1926 and put in jail in 1928.
1928-1937: disseminates his revolutionary ideas from jail by means of handwritten notebooks which were not published until after his death, under the name of Prison Notebooks (1948 and 1951)
Died in the jail hospital in Rome in 1937

2. The Gramscian strategy.

Gramsci claimed that no ideology could be imposed by force. A very violent revolution generates, as an immediate response, a counterrevolution which weakens and may even surpass the force of the first one. All change requires a previous persuasion for it to fertilize the land where the change is to flourish. The Marxist ideology would not escape this rule.

This is why he designed his strategy this way. To impose an ideological transformation it was first necessary to begin by attaining a modification in the way of thinking of civil society' (the people or inhabitants of a given country) by means of minute changes in the field of culture carried out over time. It was necessary to build up a new thought. Create what he used to call the people´s common sense, understood to be the common way of thinking of the people, which historically prevails among the members of the society. Making civil society attain a new way of "seeing life and its values" is what was necessary. To Gramsci this is more important and of greater priority than achieving domination of political society (set of organisms which exercise power from the judicial, political and military fields).

To make civil society (the sovereign people, public opinion) get to share a common way of feeling (the common sense) it was necessary to appropriate the organisms and institutions where the values and cultural parameters are developed: communications media, universities, schools, art. It was necessary to aim towards that. With patience, educating the new generations from childhood, over time (as, for example, in Mao's China or Fidel Castro's Cuba).

Once this process was to have been accomplished, acquisition of political power would fall of its own weight, without armed revolutions, without opposition, without counter-revolutions, with no need to impose the new order by force, as it would enjoy a general consensus.

3. Obstacles to overcome for the success of the Gramscian process:

Gramsci himself pointed out that, for the process to be successful, two obstacles would have to be sorted out:

The Catholic Church and the family.

3.1 Why the Catholic Church? Because, not without reason, Gramsci thought the Church´s permanence through the centuries was supported on the three following pillars:

a) The profession of a firm and unshakable faith, without concessions, and the constant repetition of the same doctrinal contents. In this way, it had achieved a strong common sense (way of thinking) among the peoples over the centuries.

b) Its having been able to amalgamate the illiterate people as well as the middle classes and the intellectual elites in its bosom. Indeed, no immanentist philosophy, including Marxism, .had managed to unite the intellectuals and the common people, the doctrinaires and the practicing, the experts and the neophytes (or 'initiated'), in a single common sense or belief. In this, Gramsci envied the Church.

c) Lastly., while Marxism required men to fight to achieve a classless society here and now, since everything ended with death; the Church had managed to convince men to look towards transcendence, to the hereafter,.and with it not only had it given an answer to the meaning of life but also to the meaning of death.

3.2 Why the family? If the strategy consisted in the formation of a way of thinking through educating in the new revolutionary values, it is clear that the family, primary educator of man in the first five years of his life, was an intolerable impediment.

4. Gramsci's strategy to overcome these obstacles.


4.1 Discredit the Church, if possible disqualifying its doctrine ("religion is the opium of the people") as well as its hierarchical members (clergy and religious of consecrated life).

4.2 Destroy the family, presenting it as an institution of the past, now left behind, incapable of educating. Separating children from the influence of their parents at their most tender age, by means of massive education in the "new culture" (experience in collective farms or distance education). Or intervening in the fundamental aspects of the child's life, from the school, and without the participation of the parents. Promoting the absence of the parents by subjecting them to unavoidable work commitments, so that children be left under the influence of counter-values education through television.

5. Some of the socio-cultural consequences of the de facto application of Gramscianism.

We cannot but recognize "that many of the efforts and predictions of this Sardinian philosopher and politician have materialized in such a way that they are now elements forming part of the common atmosphere that we breathe these days. There is an unconcealable secularist hegemony which saturates the minds of large segments of current society — beyond the various shades and variations by country, region, and town — and it is making possible, day by day, that what once had been seen as unacceptable, negative or even aberrant, be now seen as "normal", positive and even commendable, in more than one occasion.

Let us examine some examples, easily observable. Gramsci postulated that the only reality which can (and should) be spoken of is that of the "down here" (totally shut immanence), that the secularist writers and thinkers should exercise predominance in the massive communications media (it suffices to turn on the television set, to listen to certain radio programs or to take a look at any newsstand), that an end be put to the prestige of authors, institutions, communications media and publishing houses faithful to traditional values and, consequently, opposed to the secularists and modernists.

Gramsci even foresaw the defection of numerous Catholics who, blinded by the secularist Utopia, would accept the diverse forms of historical commitment." The acute Italian intellectual knew quite well that greater gains would be achieved by these gradual means of slow but sustained transformation of mentalities than by means of open persecution. A veritable war of position skillfully conceived and strategically executed. But too poorly understood and countered by those who had the obligation to do so.

It would appear that we live in a world designed (and tailored) by Gramsci: The moral and political values have been inverted. It is sought to de-hierarchize everything of value and to exalt everything that implies "horizontalism", the healthy philosophical and theological thought is "deconstructed" in such a form that it is left pulverized in a multitude of new ideologies and 'philosophies', the sole aim of which is to "de-mythify", "secularize" and "de-sacralize" everything.

Antonio Gramsci would certainly be pleased — and much — if he were able to see the full process of carrying out (of actualization as Gentile would call) of something he once prophesied: The end of religion would have to be by "suicide", by diluting the limits of Christendom with respect to the modern world. While some men dream that what has been occurring is the "Christianization of the world", what has been actually happening is exactly the opposite, considerable segments of "Christians" have become worldly, adopting the parameters and criteria proper of a mentality entirely inserted in a secularist and profane world view. Although it is not always explicitly denied, they live as though the transcendent world did not exist, as though everything started and ended "here below."

The program was (and is) quite clear: "attain the discrediting of the hegemonic class, of the Church, of the army, of the intellectuals, of the professors, etc. It will even be necessary to raise the flags of the bourgeois liberties, of democracy, as openings to penetrate civil society. It will be necessary, in a Machiavellian way, to appear as champions of those democratic principles, but knowing well that they are considered only an instrument for the general Marxistization of the common sense of the people".

Another regrettable fact, easy to observe in diverse cultural environments in the West, especially in the Latin and Latin American countries, is what has become known as the 'betrayal of the intellectuals.' This is being accomplished by various means, whether by granting them favors, perquisites, sinecures, and praises of all kinds, or else by the opposite tactic, which is the one followed with the intellectuals and professors who do not yield before these forms of preemption, for them is the pressure, blackmail, threats, boycott when not plain discredit, calumny, and defamation.

And this is because in the Gramscian strategy it is fundamental to break the opposing intellectuals in one way or another. Let's read what Father Alfredo Sáenz has to say: "Gramsci considers a great battle has been won whenever the defection of an intellectual has been accomplished, whenever a traitorous theologian, a traitorous military man, or a traitorous professor, has been conquered to his worldview. It is not necessary for these 'converts' to declare themselves Marxist, what is important it that they are no longer enemies, they are potable" for the new worldview. Hence the importance of winning over the traditional intellectuals, those who, apparently placed above politics, influence decisively in the propagation of ideas, since every intellectual (professor, journalist or priest) drags behind him a considerable number of proselytes."

"Which religion, matters not", "everything is as you see it", "do what you wish, as long as you are authentic", "everything is permitted now"; and at a philosophical level "there is no human nature, only history", "I give my own essence myself", "there is no being, only becoming"; "there is no truth; everything is reduced to multiplicities", "there is no writer, only text", "there is on subject, only structures". That, in the predominant mentality of our times, at the popular level, things like these and other similar nonsense and absurdities (the catalog is endless) should prevail, means that a camouflaged Gramscianism, in invisible alliance (deliberate or not) with the New Age movement and other ineffable adherences, keeps imposing itself full line, beyond the ever more scarce public mentions of this Italian author, both on the part of those who support him as on that of his detractors.

As we have seen, Gramscianism represents the most aggressive, caustic and dissolvent attack against all forms of transcendent religion, and in particular against Catholicism. Much of the current de-Christianization results in good part, from the destructive and semi-concealed action of the "organic intellectuals" a la Gramsci, positioned strategically, action geared to the "alteration of the common sense" theist and Christian so that its opposite take its place.

This implies the "internal decomposition of Catholicism", "to make the Church break up from the inside" and totally liquidate "the old conception of the world" inherent in the Catholic Christian culture.


Finally, it is worth noting that few things contribute so much to the advancement of secularism as the defection of theologians, professors, thinkers, journalists or writers. This is why one has to think in congruence with the principles one claims to profess, but, not less important, it is also necessary to lead a coherent life that does not detach and incommunicate the various dimensions of human life "he who does not live as he thinks will end up thinking as he lives."

domingo, 20 de mayo de 2018

Hidden repentant

 
By Irene Tauch

Taken from
https://radiocristiandad.wordpress.com/2013/12/14/poesias-desde-la-inhospita-trinchera-oculto-arrepentido/
Translated from the Spanish by Roberto Hope


Rough as a gray slab in the graveyard,
Withered like the grass in the cold winter,
Like an old, slumbrous derelict, a vagabond,
I see myself one day on this bed lying.

You can hear my breast's piteous creaking 
And of my lips, the silent galloping,
I want to hear at least one single praise,
So I can think I am and am alive.

I want a bit of tenderness and bosom.
Today, I think and feel just like a toddler
And though they tell me I am the experience,
No longer to me cares anyone to listen.

It's that at times my conscience feels remorse
For everything in this life I have lived.
Recollections bring me back my prudence
And the truth that enlightens me is forgetting.

I no longer know if there is no infinite,
Although I have sustained this at each step 
And I know I am now close to the scaffold
And it´s hard to imagine I am finite.

And it´s now in the hour of my death,
That I cannot say that I am with You,
Is the greatest of sorrows ever suffered
And the pain that I suffer at every instant. 

My pride bars me from confessing You
And to tell the world that I adore You.
This is why I have deserved
Not to be up to contemplate You someday. 

Your Passion, through which You redeemed us
I failed to accept. Oh God, what nonsense!
How do I wish that I could be serene,
To form part of Your army of saintly souls,
To worship You eternally, but in the meantime

To be a simple and repentant mortal.

The bereaved peoples


by Bonifacio Byrne

Translated from the Spanish by Roberto Hope


God of Mercy, forasmuch as You exist,
put Yourself on the side of the bereaved 
and they will rid themselves of their tormentor.

Let them that, by breaking off their chains,
they may shake off the sorrows from their spirit.

And that they stand up, as the courageous,
And to You will go up their benedictions,

And on this earth, there'll be many more lions
but there will also be much fewer serpents.

lunes, 14 de mayo de 2018

On the Temptations of Christ


By Father Leonardo Castellani (1899 - 1981)


From: 'El Evangelio de Jesucristo', Itinerarium, 1956


Translated from the Spanish by Roberto Hope


About the temptations of Christ, much can be said; but let us be brief and note three major points: the tempter, the Tempted and us.

The malignant spirit did not know for sure whether Christ was or was not the Messiah and much less whether He was God or no. It seems incredible, with the talent the devil has, and knowing the messianic prophecies better than any rabbi, that he did not draw the conclusions that many men drew. But it was so, it suffices to read the Gospel; in addition, Saint Paul expressly says that the devil would not have — by means of the Jews — crucified Christ had he been aware that He was the Son of God (I Cor II, 8).

That a God be made man is an Absolute Mystery, it is, shall we say, an Absurdity; it is beyond the comprehension of any created mind. That mystery cannot be discovered and known if it is not by means of a supernatural act of faith, an act which is impossible without God's grace, which the devil lacks.

That is why the purpose of the Tempter was, as it clearly appears, not only to make Christ sin but also to rid himself of that doubt, which he was unable to accomplish: "If you are the Son of God, make these rocks turn into bread." It must be granted that the devil's audacity is infinite: he is a scoundrel because he no longer has anything to lose. Suspecting Christ to be a divine person, having, however, grabbed Him and taken Him to the Belfry! "How scared must the wretch have been — says Saint Theresa — as he went flying!"... But we don't actually know whether he went flying.

The devil has an enormous power — this is what this Gospel tells — but on the other hand it is a vain power, because it can be overcome "in words", with the Word of God.

Great praise of the Holy Scripture is contained in this Gospel: Christ overcomes the three temptations with the weapon of the Holy Scripture. But the power of the devil is tremendous against those who go unarmed. When he told Christ: "All this is mine and to whomsoever I wish, I give it", showing him the kingdoms of this world — in politics it can be said that the devil has no competitor — Christ did not respond: "Liar! All this is God's, not yours", He did not get into an argument with him, because in a certain sense all this is, indeed, the devil's; in the sense that, because of our sins, he meddles with everything these days. He is the Armed Strong Man, the Powers of Darkness, the Prince of this World, as Christ called him elsewhere. It is likely that, on birth, Satan was the Archangel who had been predestined to maneuver and control the material world; or at least of this planet; and not for having sinned did he lose that connatural power over this silent planet (Castellani alludes to  C. S. Lewis' 'Out of the silent planet' theological novel). But all power is God's.

That which our elders used to call "selling the soul to the devil" is possible: it was the transaction proposed to Christ in the Third Temptation. When an evil man does incessantly well in this world. you can tell he is a possessed; to the common iniquitous men, morality imparts punishment in the short term. If God does not prevent him, the devil can do the strangest things to man, and that I know from the books, but if I were to say that I know it only from the books, I would be lying.

Why did he tempt Christ with those things? With the Dumbobrigida (referring to Gina Lollobrigida, a popular Italian starlet of Castellani's time — translator's note) or with some other of God's little female creatures which give us the honor of  amusing the rabble of Buenos Aires, with the key to the Central Bank; with the urns full of votes in Congress, I can tempt anybody. But with rocks, with motorless flights, with fantastic promises of universal empires?...

The devil knew that Christ was a saintly religious man — he had seen Him prepare Himself for His religious mission with Moses' fasting, he had seen him burning like a great bonfire in continuous prayer —; and he tempted Him as a religious man, on a religious plane, not on the carnal plane. A note on the Gospel translated by Straubinger says: "the first one was a temptation of sensuality"... This is an error. The three of them were temptations of pride. The devil tempts those who do as rigorous Lents as Christ did, with temptations of pride, not of sensuality.

The devil tries to ape God, since his fall was from wanting to be like God and this is his constant obsession. The devil tempts promising or giving God's things; the same that God is to give us if we have patience and fidelity. Christ could have gotten bread by waiting a bit — "and the angels served it to Him" — without the need of a miracle. The devil pushes us, he hastens us, he is the spur of the world: he invites us to anticipate, to abuse, to get there first. To the first humans he said "You shall be like gods" which is what God proposed to do and does with man, by means of divine adoption (sanctifying grace) and of the beatific vision. "We will then be like Him, because we will see him as He is", says Saint John. Eve sinned because she coveted an anticipation of the divine vision, We cannot be tempted but for according to our own natural.

Thus, he tempted Jesus in accordance with what was natural of Him, with the same that He was to attain one day. Christ was to convert the rocks of gentility into the bread of his Mystic Body, according to that: "Do you think that from these rocks I cannot get sons of Abraham?". Christ was to fly visibly to heaven in front of his apostles and some five hundred disciples. Finally, Christ will someday be Universal King of the whole world as he is already by right and hope.

The devil is now tempting humanity with a Universal Kingdom achieved without Christ, with the force of man alone. All this great movement of today's world (the UN. UNESCO, the World's Council of Churches, the great imperialisms, the promises of a thousand years of peace on the part of the Leaders) represents that unstoppable yearning of humankind for the Millennium, for its natural and peaceful unity, for its integration as the Human Race.

It is useless to oppose that most present yearning — ultra-nationalists are wrong — because it is a yearning contained in the bosom of the world's historical evolution as it is a divine promise. But the devil wants to get there first. We Christians know that this will come, but it can only come with and by Christ; and that this manner, as it is being done now, we cannot accept, because it is the vast preparation of the Anti-Christ. "If this is serving the country, the how to me does not tally" (a paraphrase of "si eso es servir al Gobierno, a mí no me gusta el cómo" from José Hernández novel 'Martín Fierro' — translator's note). So we give the appearance of impotent on the one hand, of backward reactionaries on the other.

The Church appears to be in downright crisis these days; she cannot achieve the peace of the nations, the most urgent of the world needs, she is bruised within herself, she does nothing but take apparently negative measures: Syllabus, Anti-modernist oath,  forbid this, forbid that. She is not at the head of "civilization" as in other times; she does nothing but to pull backwards: this is because "civilization" has taken the wrong road, that of the Tower of Babel. A satanic road.

"All this is mine and I give it to whomsoever I want; all this I will give you if, prostrating at my feet, you adore me." Some man someday will accept this deal. I know not when. A friend of mine who pretends to be a prophet says that this man will be born in 1963 and will become Emperor in 1996. I think that neither he nor I know when. I, at least, don't know.

It is not necessary to know much Latin of Greek to predict that the Church will be tempted, if Christ was tempted, and it will be with the same temptations of Christ.

We could perhaps say that the first one was in the Middle Ages, the second one in the Renaissance, and the third one now. This so that we may understand each other, although the three work together.

The first temptation is this: by means of the religious procure material goods for herself — as if we should say to trade miracles for bread — which may go to an extreme called simony, or the sale of what is sacred. But the priests also have to eat and the Church needs goods. I do not deny that the Church needs goods, what I do know is that there is a very fine line, beyond which the "goods" become evils. Being the effect rather taking the bread and turning it into stone, a miracle backwards, as for example making great stone temples where the bread of the Divine Word is lacking, of which as of bread man lives, responded Christ to Satan.

The second temptation is by religious means attain prestige, power, pomposities and "the glory that men give" (John 12:43). And it is also true that the Church needs a good name, since one of the distinctive notes of the true religion is for it to be saintly. Thus one of Saint Augustine's major arguments against the heretics and pagans were the admirable 'customs' of the primitive Church as opposed to the evil customs of them. See his books De Civitate Dei, De Moribus Ecclesiae, De Moribus Manicheorum.

But one thing is that others call one saint and another that one calls himself so. Days ago I heard a preacher who dared say a eulogy of the order to which he belonged, that the Belfry of the Church trembled (ie the Temple's Pinnacle) and I could not less than think: This would be better that the people were the ones who said it.

The third temptation is unconcealedly satanic: prostrate before the devil in order to rule the world. Can the Church be so tempted? The Church is not greater than Christ. Cruelty, for instance, is demoniacal. The saintly and the demoniac are opposites and consequently, they are both on the same plane, and corruption of the best is the worst. Talking about Savonarola, Cardinal Newman said: "The Church cannot be reformed by disobedience." and his interlocutor answered: "Much less by cruelty, my dear Cardinal" The Ascetic can be tempted of hardness of heart, of inhumanity, of cruelty. "My daughter has become cruel as the ostrich", says God through His Prophet.


This is the last temptation, of which God may deliver and guard me, and above all, may God deliver and guard the others: As Ramón Ibarra, the man from Jachal, in a knife fight with Dionisio Mendoza said: "Hold him! Hold him! Hold the other one! As I, whether well or bad, can hold myself alone."

lunes, 7 de mayo de 2018

Chronicle of a Plot against the Church

by Sofronio
Taken from https://materinmaculata.wordpress.com/2014/04/08/cronica-de-un-complot-contra-la-iglesia/
Translated from the Spanish by Roberto Hope



This article is related to a previous one titled Viduy, teschuva y tikkun, which I recommend to readers interested in understanding the Synagogue's modern strategy against the Church better.

In contrast with other magisterial texts of the Church, the document known as Nostra Aetate of the Second Vatican Council (hereinafter VC2), issued on October 26, 1965, never quotes any of the writings of prior councils or of the popes who preceded the pope who issued it: Paul VI. The practice of quoting, whether in the text itself or in marginal notes, references to preceding magisterium has the purpose of showing, as is well known, continuity in Church doctrine and tradition. Now then, in the declaration on the Jews there is no reference to any positive precedent, be it councils, popes, Church Fathers or ecclesiastical writers. It was, then, a compromise text which for the first time presented a daring positive image of the perfidious Jews, in flagrant rupture with the doctrine of the Church of almost two thousand years.
It was a compromise text following a terrible unprecedented doctrinal fighting which took place in the preceding years. Involved in this war were members of the influential Curia and Conciliar Fathers. Numerous libels were not lacking to defend the salvation theology taught by the Church for two thousand years against assault attempts and infiltration by Satan's Synagogue against the bride of Christ. In words of André Chouraqui, " the Church, having been afflicted with a more or less total amnesia for over two thousand years, suddenly reinstates the primogeniture in the context of the family of the People of God. In addition, the Church categorically rejects all forms of proselytism with respect to them, proscribing what previously had been admitted." Even considering that instead of "the Church" Chouraqui should have written "the men of the Church, We will try to respond to this question."it is perfectly understood that the Jews have realized that those men of the Church have proscribed the previous doctrine and betray the mission that Christ gave to his disciples. The seed of the chaff had been planted and it has been growing fast. But how was this novel doctrine reached? How was such Trojan horse introduced in our fortress? We will try to answer this question.
We will limit ourselves to show what refers to the Twentieth Century on this topic, assuming that the reader knows it was the infidel Jews those who cried for the death of our Lord Jesus Christ and let Hid blood fall on their heads and those of their children. We likewise assume it is well known that the Synagogue has been behind all of the persecutions of the Church; since Saint Stephan's martyrdom to Nero´s persecution, passing by the Reformation, the liberal Revolution of 1789, Bolshevik Revolution, in which the greatest portion of its leaders were Jews, and that of "cape and tiara" begun by the Carbonari in the Nineteenth Century and continued by the modernism which triumphed in VC2.
Upon the end of the Second World War, the Jews resumed the defiance of the Church demanding that she revise her teaching on this perfidious race.
1946. A conference took place in Oxford under the auspices of powerful British and American Jewish organizations; among those who attended were representatives of the Catholic Church and Protestants
1946. Sixty participants of that conference met in Seelisberg, Switzerland, to discuss the topic of antisemitism. Father Journet was among the Catholics who attended. Jaques Maritain had been invited and though he was unable to participate, he sent a message of encouragement. The central personage was Jew Jules Isaac. It concludes with a ten-point agreement of which the following one stands out: "Christians need to diligently revise and purify their own language, as a not always innocent routine filtered absurd expressions as deicide race, or a more racist than Christian manner in which the history of the Passion was narrated...
1948. Jules Isaac founds the Judaeo-Christian Friendship, the object of which is to "rectify Christian teaching". Many liberal Catholics take part in their meetings, disseminating the ten points of the Seelisberg Conference around all places.
1948. Liberal Catholics convince Jules Isaac to request being received by Pius XII.
1949. On October 16, Jules Isaac is received by Pius XII to whom he exposes the ten points of Seelisberg. The outcome of the meeting is little satisfactory, It is necessary to wait while the spider net keeps weaving.
1959. The founders of the Center for the Study of the Current Problems, organization linked to the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, right hand of the Jewish masonic organization B'nai B'rith, meet with Jules Isaac to speak of the possibility of a contact with John XXIII. Jules approves the proposal.
Let us recall that a few months earlier, John XXIII had spoken about the possibility of convoking a council. Also, that cardinals had advised Pius XI against a similar convocation in 1923. Cardinal Billot had warned the pope: "Ought we not fear that the council be manipulated by the worst enemies of the Church, the modernists, who as reports demonstrate with evidence, are getting prepared to take advantage of the States General of the Church (this is to say, a council - translator's note) and carry out a revolution, a new 1978?" (quoted by Mons. Mallerais). However, a counter-council was being prepared which should supplant the first when the time came. The proof of this coup against the initial schema of the council are overwhelmingly abundant in The Rhine Flows into the Tiber by Ralph Witgen.
1960. Monsignor Julien advises Jules Isaac to go to Cardinal Augustine Bea, a German Jesuit. After his interview with the Cardinal, Jules admits: "I found in him great support". "What the evil tongues used to say about Cardinal Bea: that he was a Jew at heart, is true". Isaac succeeded in getting an audience with John XXIII in June of that same year. At the meeting, he delivered to John XXIII a memorandum titled Need of a reform of Christian teaching with respect to Israel. Isaac recalls: "I asked John XXIII if I could have some hope", to which the Bishop of Rome responded that he (Isaac) had the right to have something more than hope, but that he (John XIII) was not an absolute monarch. After the interview, John XXIII wanted to make the Curia know that he expected from the Council a condemnation of antisemitism. From that moment on, many encounters took place between the commissions of the Council and the Jewish Anti-Defamation League and the Jewish masonry of the B'nai B'rith.
As Joseph Roddy narrates in his article titled How the Jews Changed Catholic Thinking, these Jewish organizations were able to make their voice be listened to in Rome quite frequently. But Rabbi Abraham J. Heschel, who for over thirty years had heard about the Jewish heart of Bea, by then already a cardinal, worked hard in favor of the Synagogue. The two, meeting in Rome, talked about certain documents prepared by the American Jewish Committee. One dealt with the image of the Jews in Catholic teaching, the other with the anti-Jewish elements in the Catholic Liturgy. Heschel declared afterward that he expected a declaration from the Council saying that in no way should the Jews be exhorted to convert to Christianity. Likewise, Dr. Goldman, head of the World Conference of Jewish Organizations, let his desire be known by John XXIII, while the B'nai B´rith exerted pressure for the Catholics to reform their liturgy and suppress all expressions unfavorable to the Jews from it. Much could be said about the years of preparation of the Council, men, nets, plans, friendships, enmities, but let´s go on.
1962. Monsignor John Osterreicher and Father Baum, front men for Cardinal Bea prepared the text on Judaism with consent from the World Jewish Congress (WJC), declaration of which was to be presented in the first session of the Council, and which acquitted the Jews from the accusation of deicide. The WJC expressed its satisfaction and sent Dr. Cain Y. Ward to the Council as an unofficial observer. But the reaction of the Arab countries in face of the privilege intended to be granted to the Jews was swift. The numerous protests made the Vatican's Secretary of State remove the project from the Council´s agenda. In face of this treason to Christ, exculpating the Jews from deicide, a group had a 900-page book titled Plot against the Church and written under the pseudonym Maurice Pinay delivered to 2,200 cardinals and bishops. The book tried to warn the Council Fathers that the Jews, who had always tried to infiltrate the Church to change its teaching, were about the achieve their goal.
1963. This fiasco did not discourage Cardinal Bea. On March 31, under maximum secrecy, he met with heads of the American Jewish Congress at the Hotel Plaza in New York, who pressured for the bishops to change the Church teaching on the History of Salvation. Before the Committee Cardinal Bea refuted the traditional accusations of deicide of infidel Jews. and calmed the rabbis. The Jewish pressure was in crescendo. A short time afterward, Rolf Hochhut's film, the Vicar, casting slanders against Pius XII for his actions during the Second World War, was released with the intention of influencing the Conciliar assembly.
1963. Autumn. The Council Fathers received the declaration on the Jews as Chapter IV on ecumenism for it to pass unnoticed. The declaration on the Jews and the matter of religious liberty were subjects of very heated debates. At stake was the Church´s renunciation to the monopoly on the only truth. The oriental patriarchs defended courageously the Church´s traditional teaching. We do not quote any of them because they were many, but they stood out ahead of the westerners. Likewise, other representatives of the Catholic Orthodoxy distributed several volumes of the work entitled The Jews through the Scripture and Tradition with the purpose of alerting on the manipulations of the enemy. The text had to be withdrawn.
1964. The Jewish interventions multiply themselves before Paul VI, standing out the meetings he had with Joseph Lichten of Anti Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, Zachariah Schuster and Leonard Sperry of the American Jewish Committee, US Cardinal Spellman, Arthur J. Goldberg, US Supreme Court Justice and rabbi Heschel According to Roddy's revelations, "before the Third Session, six members of the American Jewish Congress were received by Paul VI. The Holy Father manifested to his visitors his approval of Cardinal Spellman's declarations about the Jews' lack of culpability." Further on, he underlines that "Heschel interviewed Paul VI in the company of Schuster, energetically speechifying about the deicide and the culpability requesting the Pontiff to exert pressure so as to obtain a declaration prohibiting Catholics from any kind of proselytism with respect to the Jews". On November 20, bishops and cardinals voted on a provisional schema dealing with the position of the Church vis a vis Judaism. 99 conciliar fathers voted against it, 1650 for it and 242 with reservations. The Catholic forces began to give in. The Oriental fathers voted in block against any kind of conciliar declaration on the Jews. The final scrutiny would take place in 1965. The last warning about the change in doctrine which was being attempted to be imposed came from the hand of Leon de Poncins in a pamphlet titled The Problem of the Jews at the Vatican Council. Poncins warns that "among a portion of the Conciliar Fathers there is a deep ignorance of the essence of Judaism". But the document only produced the effect of deepening the arguments against the schema and substitute the paragraphs which most directly attacked Christian teaching.
1965. Finally, the definite text of Nostra Aetate, a compromise text was voted on the fourth session on October 28. 2,221 voted in favor and 88 against. With Nostra Aetate, the bishops of the Catholic Church for the first time in history presented a positive and daring image of the perfidious Jews. "The discussions following the taking of conscience of VC2 were preparing the Christian world, little y little, to assume a new theology about the relations of the Church with Judaism. The purpose of the Vatican's and the episcopates' guidelines in the last fifty years was directed to transform the mentality by means of a great education effort of the peoples of the Christian space" (Michel Laurigan). This effort tends to
  • Recall the perpetuity of the first Alliance (anathematized affirmation)
  • Inculcate appreciation for the infidel Jewish people, "sacerdotal people" (which cannot be saved if they do not believe in Christ)
  • Renounce to the conversion of the Jews (against Christ, Saint Peter and all of the Apostles)
  • Familiarize constantly with Jewish cooperation (pure pelagianism)
  • Prepare the road for the noahide religion (deprive Christ of His divinity)

The rest, what we suffer today of the false shepherds, is the rotten fruit of having betrayed Christ. Let us recall a few among thousands of nauseating products of this gigantic treason; in an almost telegraphic manner:
  • Heretical text of the French Commission for the Relations with Judaism of Easter 1973, which states that the first alliance was not abrogated by Christ's new one (declaration which falls under anathema of the Catholic Church)
  • Text titled Reflections on the Alliance and the Mission, of the American episcopate, of August 2002, in which they conclude that actions directed to convert Jews to Catholicism are no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church (this is tantamount to apostasy from the Mission ordered by Christ)
  • Successive visits to synagogues by Roman bishops, joint prayers, forgiveness requests from Jews, participation in Talmudic liturgies, suppression of prayers in the Catholic liturgy, as that of Holy Friday.

Here is but one example of the rupture which has taken place:

Holy Friday's prayer of the Missal of Saint Pius V:

Let us pray also for the faithless Jews, that Almighty God may remove the veil from their hearts so that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Oh almighty and eternal God, who dost not exclude from Thy mercy even Jewish faithlessness, hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people; that, acknowledging the light of Thy truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered from their darkness. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

New Holy Friday prayer:

Let us pray for the Jews, to which God spoke first so that they progress in the love of His name and fidelity of their alliance.

Once the 'catholic church' by means of that great educational effort, following the Jewish plan, gets to reform its vision of the deicide people, preach only a human Christ which comes to bring a happiness moral to all men, that is, renounces to confess His divinity, and reinterprets the mystery of the Holy Trinity, the 'catholic church' will be, in the words of the Jew Benamozegh, the one in charge of propagating noahism. Judaism believes all people are obligated to observe a universal law. This universal law will be Noah's seven commandments:
  1. Establish courts of justice so that the law rule society
  2. Prohibition of blasphemy
  3. Prohibition of idolatry, Adoration of Christ and the Trinity being considered idolatry.
  4. Prohibition of incest
  5. Prohibition of the shedding of blood
  6. Prohibition of theft
  7. Prohibition to eat the flesh of certain animals

The new mission assigned to the church would consist of evangelizing the peoples in that noahide humanism, and propitiate their unification. The primacy of Rome would be facilitated to achieve the unity of the Christians, for the reunited church to preach a religion of natural morality without Christ, by means of which its adepts could be saved. Remember that the seven commandments of Noah are the minimum common of the three religions of the Book. The non-Jews should not try to convert to the religion of the Talmud, reserved to the elected, the racial Jews.
Here, then, in synthesis, since the Nostra Aetate declaration of VC2 , we walk the road contrary to that of Saul, who became Saint Paul; our shepherds lead us back to Damascus, to the Supreme Priest, to ask him for a charter to end the resistance of the true Christians who confess only one Lord, Jesus Christ, one God whose substance is Trinitarian. Persecution will be directed against us. The enormous Jewish finances, fruit of the gravest sin, of usury against the poor, which cries heaven for justice, will undertake to brighten up the few reluctant men to stoop to the intentions of Satan´s Synagogue. Oh, City of the Seven Hills who has permitted the dirty and usurious hands of the deicide Jews to fall in your squalid purse! You have relinquished your liberty for the salvation of the souls to your worst enemy. Only one hope remains because Christ never abandons His Church.


Note: The content of this article is a modified summary of Michel Laurigan´s text titled 'The Myth of the Substitution to the Noahide Religion', with a mixture of his numerous notes.