The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewE. Michael Jones Archive
Quis Custodiet Traditionis Custodes?
Who watches over the guardians of tradition?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

On July 16, 2021, the Vatican issued a motu proprio on the Latin Mass under the title of Traditionis Custodes which effectively revoked Pope Benedict’s motu proprio Summorum Pontificium, which made the Latin Mass more readily available to the faithful. That story began in 1988 when Pope John Paul II issued his own motu proprio Ecclesia Dei in the wake of the Lefebvrite schism of that same year. Worried that the Lefebvrites would follow the Latin Mass out of the Church, Pope John Paul II made the Tridentine rite available on a limited basis. As part of his efforts to end the Lefebvrite schism, Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications of the four bishops Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated and expanded access to the Tridentine rite, by issuing his own motu proprio. Both Summorum Potificium and Ecclesia Dei were, in Pope Francis’s words, “motivated by the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre. With the ecclesial intention of restoring the unity of the Church, the Bishops were thus asked to accept with generosity the ‘just aspirations’ of the faithful who requested the use of that Missal.”[1]

In his motu proprio withdrawing those privileges, Pope Francis maintains that the permission which Pope John Paul II granted in 1988 was issued conditionally, and that Pope Benedict’s renewal of the mandate in 2007 reinforced this conditionality by intending to introduce “a clearer juridical regulation” in this area. Claiming that his understanding of the current situation is clearer than Ratzinger’s in 2007, Bergoglio is claiming that “serious difficulties came to light” in the implementation of the norms “once the Motu proprio came into effect,” which require drastic action on his part because toleration of two separate rites has led to disunity in the Church.

After sending a questionnaire to the world’s bishops, Francis “regrettably” discovered that Ratzinger’s desire “to do everything possible to ensure that all those who truly possessed the desire for unity would find it possible to remain in this unity or to rediscover it anew” had “been seriously disregarded,” prompting Francis to take action. Contrary to Ratzinger’s intentions, the Latin Mass had become a source of division in the Church. Instead of consoling those who missed the old rite, the Latin Mass has been “exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division.” The Latin Mass has been instrumentalized to authorize “a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself, claiming, with unfounded and unsustainable assertions, that it betrayed the Tradition and the ‘true Church.’”

This is a serious problem because “to doubt the Council is to doubt the intentions of those very Fathers who exercised their collegial power in a solemn manner cum Petro et sub Petro in an ecumenical council and, in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church.” By abusing the privilege previous popes had granted them, the Traditionalists forced the pope’s hand, leaving him “constrained to revoke the faculty granted by my Predecessors.” Acting as the principal of unity who is in charge of the “sacrament of unity,” Pope Francis made “the firm decision to abrogate all the norms, instructions, permissions and customs that precede the present Motu proprio, and declare that the liturgical books promulgated by the saintly Pontiffs Paul VI and John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, constitute the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.

Initial reports were confusing because even though the official translation was published in English on the Vatican website, it did not include the eight articles of implementation which were included in the Catholic News Agency article. Those include an instruction to the bishops to ban all celebrations of the Latin Mass from “parochial churches” as well as a ban on “the erection of new personal parishes.”[2] The articles of implementation contained a tone which was guaranteed to generate animosity and did. The reaction was predictable. Here is one of the tamer responses I received:

I have now received several emails about the Francis attack on the true Mass. One of them included a recent article telling [sic] that young people given a choice are overwhelmingly choosing the true Mass of antiquity. No wonder this anti-Pope – or maybe even anti-Christ – is at his worst. Note well that this announcement, in the middle of July, fits into the new, tougher, phase of world genocide, especially in nations where Christian civilization once ruled, closing in with constantly greater force and restriction. The devil never misses a beat. He knows that his ONLY earthly enemy is THE TRUE CATHOLIC CHURCH and that it is the Virgin Mary who crushes his head. Has anyone noticed that, now also in the U.S., antifa type destroyers, whenever they have done their destruction in Catholic Churches, always make it a point to destroy any image or picture of Mary? Doesn’t get much press, does it? This is all the same war, that supernatural war described by St. Paul. The “reset” which the highest satanists are pursuing, hiding behind the false pandemic, amounts to the open rule of Satan even to the total destruction of God’s double-edged gift to all humanity, FREE WILL. Full enslavement of any non-satanic people who might escape the genocide. Well, it’s a very good sign that the TRUE CATHOLIC RELIGION, TRUE ADORATION OF GOD, is the one the young are drawn to, not the satanic/talmudic/masonic/wholly protestant false-humanism hatred of it in Catholic drag, called “Vatican II” or “novus ordo.”

Here is on of the less tame responses:

I penned a very polite letter to Pope Francis. I’m sure you’d love it. Ahaha. Actually it’s not polite at all … Hey Pope Francis, I just went to a Traditional Latin Mass in St. Louis. No one is listening to your Motu Proprio. Every single parish that was doing it is still doing it. Literally everyone is ignoring you

This diatribe then descends into language associating the Pope with pedophilia that I would rather not repeat. Both responses could have been written by a liturgist who wanted to prove that everything Pope Francis said about the traditionalists in his motu proprio was true. After reading a number of responses, I began to discern a pattern that I had noticed long ago. The furor surrounding the Latin Mass is not about the Latin Mass. As before the Latin Mass has been claimed by various protest groups. The Latin Mass in the first instance cited above is the standard bearer for those protesting the Church’s inadequate response to the COVID pandemic. The following letter makes equally clear that the Latin Mass has been co-opted by those protesting the pedophile crisis. After the Lefebvrite schism, the Latin Mass became the symbol of a protest movement organized by people who were either intellectually incapable of understanding the chaos which followed the Second Vatican Council or unwilling to confront the Church’s real enemies.


Neo-Conservative-co-optation of Traditionalism in America was always a New York-based operation. In the decade before it went into formal schism, the headquarters of the American branch of the SSPX was in Oyster Bay, Long Island until Clarence Kelly succeeded in stealing that operation from Lefebvre in the 1970s and forming his own Society of Pius V. The Kellyite operation quickly devolved into a predatory cult before it shattered, and parents who fled the horrors of the Novus Ordo Church soon understood that they had jumped from the frying pan into the fire as they sought to remove their children from Kellyite convents and have them reprogrammed as I pointed out in “The Kidnapping of Sister Mary Cecelia,” an article I published in Fidelity in 1989.

In what must have been the early 1980s, not long after founding Fidelity magazine, I had dinner with Howard Walsh, creator of Keep the Faith, which produced audio cassettes of the sermons of Archbishop Fulton Sheen and others. Walsh was at that point a mover and shaker in the New York area Traditionalist world. During that dinner, Howard told me that nothing was going to get better until we returned to the Latin Mass. Howard always treated me well. I spoke at two of his symposia in New Jersey, giving one talk on the Dangers of Private Revelations and engaging in a debate with the late Michael Davies on whether the SSPX was in schism or not. But his claim about the Latin Mass struck me as the expression of an attitude which I had created Fidelity to oppose. At this point in time, no one knew anything about the real history of the Church after Vatican II because the liberal academic faction in the Church, epitomized best by Notre Dame, was bent on suppressing what had really happened. No one knew about the series of secret birth control conferences which the Rockefeller Foundation sponsored at Notre Dame because they were meant to remain secret. And no one would know about them today, or the meeting which Father Hesburgh arranged between Pope Paul VI and John D. Rockefeller, 3rd, if I had followed Howard Walsh’s advice.

Walsh’s Latin Mass Know Nothing crowd was, in this regard, the perfect complement to the sexual revolutionaries who had taken over Catholic higher education in this country. The Latin Massers were similar to the Bayside Know Nothings who showed up en masse to heckle me at the talk Howard sponsored on the dangers of private revelations. They shared significant overlap with the Grunerite faction of the Fatima Know Nothings, who demanded that the pope consecrate Russia according to Father Gruner’s specifications. Because of their addiction to private revelations, the Grunerites resembled the Medjugorje Know Nothings, who were charismatics and loathed everything to do with the Latin Mass. The lunatics who supported Medjugorje felt comfortable with the heretics who ran Notre Dame, where the Medjugorje Know Nothings held their conferences, because the one thing both groups shared was contempt for Church authority. Each group was in sole possession of the secret of the universe, which they planned to impose on the Catholic Church as dogma if given the chance. When the Church balked, they left in a huff, taking with them their respective stashes of religious opium, wanting nothing more than to be left alone to savor it in peace.

Howard worked closely with Roger McCaffrey, son of Neil McCaffrey, founder of the Conservative Book Club and a mover and shaker in the world of direct mail and conservative causes. Traditionalism was a New York operation, and as such it was a subset of New York conservatism whose main commissar was William F. Buckley, who used his police powers to excommunicate anyone who deviated from the conservative party line. As National Review writer, Joe Sobran, found out to his chagrin, the third rail of American conservatism was criticism of Jews. Because of the influence of the McCaffreys, this taboo got imposed on Traditionalism as well.

Latin Mass Attendees
Latin Mass Attendees

Roger was closely associated with the late William Marra, a professor from Fordham who was a student of Dietrich von Hildebrand. Together with Roger and the late Vincent Miceli, S.J., Marra ran an anti-modernist operation known as the Roman Forum, which invited me to a number of interviews for its radio program. The story of my getting fired from St. Mary’s College for opposing abortion was a popular show, but when I told Bill during another show, in the early summer of 1988, that Medjugorje was “a joke which got out of hand,” I remember a cloud passing over his face. Bill was no supporter of phony apparitions, but having been present when I was almost lynched by irate Baysiders at my talk on the dangers of private revelations, he knew that there were certain opinions which were left better unsaid.

In the studio during that interview was a young man by the name of John Rao, who eventually took over the Roman Forum after Marra’s sudden death. Rao ran a series of Traditionalist themed seminars in Gardone in northern Italy every summer which became an important forum for the discussion of ideas dear to Traditionalist hearts. I often met John in Switzerland after the conclusion of those seminars because I was regularly attending a German conference for which opposition to the new world order provided a thin patch of common ground. It was during one of those meetings that the idea of my attending the Traditionalist conferences in Gardone was first broached. Because John and I had always had a meeting of the minds, the invitation got repeated at various times, until one summer I was sitting by the phone with my bags packed when I got the call from John informing me that someone of influence in his organization (which meant a donor, I suspect) pressured John into reneging on my invitation at the last minute, thus aborting an opportunity to discuss the thesis of The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit in the Traditionalist circles who had gone out of their way to avoid the issue.


Not long after that, I got a call from Chris Ferrara challenging me to a debate. Chris was the son of Joe Ferrara, who worked for Howard Walsh. Joe asked me to do an exposé on Tradition, Family, Property (TFP), the cult from Brazil which was actively recruiting Chris at the time. The exposé I published in Fidelity broke TFP’s hold over Chris’s mind but at the price of turning Paul Weyrich, who was promoting that cult at the time, into a very nasty and determined enemy, who did everything within his power to destroy me. Joe was grateful, but Chris never thanked me for springing him from the Brazilian cult. In fact, I had the impression that Chris saw me as a foe of Traditionalism ever after, and maybe he had reason to be mad at me because it was because of me that he ended up on the SPLC’s dirty dozen list of Catholic “anti-Semites.” The “dirty dozen” had nothing in common other than the SPLC’s decision to go after Catholics because I had written The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit. Chris was rightly outraged at his inclusion on that list because Latin Mass Traditionalism as practiced by the New York crowd avoided talking about Jews. Chris had been present at the debate in which I trounced Michael Davies, and I suspect that he wanted a chance to have a rematch to repair the damage I had done to Traditionalism, and so I readily agreed. “Sure,” I said, “let’s do it in Gardone.” At which point Ferrara smirked and said, “In your dreams” and went on to suggest Minneapolis in February as an alternative venue. Needless to say, I had no burning desire to visit Minneapolis in February, and the debate never took place. Ferrara’s hostility was palpable and justified, because I was the reason he ended up on the SPLC’s list of anti-Semitic Catholics, but also because idiots at the SPLC, who informed us that Logos was the Latin word for reason, didn’t know that the New York-based Traditionalist movement was an elaborate scheme which allowed its politically conservative members to let off steam safely without ever mentioning the word Jew.

During the early 1990s, Roger was feeling ambitious and, wanting to expand his reach among “conservative Catholics,” offered to buy Fidelity magazine from me. After entertaining his ridiculously low offer for about three seconds, I decided not to sell, and Roger, undeterred, decided to start his own magazine, which he called significantly Latin Mass Magazine. This happened in the early 1990s when Pat Buchanan upset the Republican Party by defeating the incumbent George Bush in the New Hampshire primary. It was clear that the Latin Mass was being weaponized once again, this time to serve as a siege cannon in the culture wars.

I remember wondering at the time how the Latin Mass could possibly serve as the basis for a monthly magazine. I remember the terror I felt when I realized, after months of preparation to bring out the first number of Fidelity, that I was faced with the deadline for the second issue, and then a series of unrelenting deadlines after that. Fidelity was based on a premise which allowed discussion of a wide range of topics, but what was the second issue of Latin Mass Magazine going to talk about? The Latin Mass and Gas Deregulation? Eventually, Latin Mass became a clone of Culture Wars, with writers like my good friend Bob Reilly regularly appropriating my material and publishing it in unattributed form.

My point is that the Latin Mass was being weaponized here to fight the culture wars in a way that was completely inappropriate and counter-productive. The Latin Mass wasn’t the magic key which could unlock the mysteries of social engineering or sexual liberation and the effect they had on Catholics after World War II or Vatican II. The Latin Mass was the Latin Mass. If anything, it was, like Baroque art, a response to the Protestant Reformation, and a vehicle of the logos and sacramental grace necessary to do battle in the culture wars of the 16th century. If the Latin Massers listened closely they might hear references to the perfidious Jews in its texts, but it was precisely any mention of the Jews which the neo-conservative Traditionalists wanted to suppress. In this regard, the Latin Massers were in perfect agreement which the liberal liturgists who gave us the Novus Ordo Mass. Ratzinger facilitated that weaponization with his motu proprio, and that led to Bergoglio’s reaction. Then as now, however, the real issue was Catholic unity.

In the February 1993 issue of Fidelity magazine, I published an article on “Why Bishop Sullivan Supports Both Homosexuals and the Latin Mass and Why this is not surprising” based on an article which had appeared in that month’s issue of Latin Mass Magazine praising Bishop Walter Sullivan of Richmond, Virginia for allowing two indult Masses, then permitted by Ecclesia Dei, for people interested in the Tridentine Mass in his diocese. Jeffry Rubin, the author of the article, found this fact “paradoxical” because the same bishop signed a dissent from the Vatican statement defending the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. Upon closer examination, there was neither contradiction nor paradox involved in the move because Sullivan’s decision was based on an ecclesiology which reduced Church attendance to a consumerist choice between the Latin and vernacular rites, as if they were the religious equivalents of choosing Coke over Pepsi or vice versa. The same was true of the competing “sexualities” Bishop Sullivan endorsed when he signed the protest against the Church’s then recent condemnation of homosexuality. Bishop Sullivan simply wanted to keep everybody happy. His desire to keep both homosexuals and Latin Massers happy had serious consequences, however, for Church unity. Unity, I argued, was an all or nothing proposition. As I pointed out then:

Promoting the Latin Mass as an option is something fundamentally different than instituting it as the universal norm in the Church. This is a fact that proponents of the Latin Mass seem to have missed, and in their zeal for promoting the Latin Mass as the summum bonum, they seem willing to admit principles that undermine both conservatism and the whole notion of Catholicity in Catholic worship. They adopt the tactics of the political pressure group, and then are bewildered to find that the liberal bishop of Richmond is so accommodating. This should come as no mystery. Liberalism or consumerism is the underlying philosophy which allows Bishop Sullivan to accommodate both groups, which want liturgical as well as sexual norms changed more to their liking.[3]E. Michael Jones, “Why Bishop Sullivan . . . ,” Fidelity, February 1993, pp. 17-8.

When questioned about his policy, Bishop Sullivan opined, “I feel that everyone has the right to worship in an expression that best fulfills their spiritual needs,” which is precisely the attitude which Pope Francis abrogated in Traditionis Custodes. By expanding the indult which Pope John Paul II introduced to keep the SSPXers, who were using the Latin Mass to justify going into schism, in the Church, Ratzinger unwittingly set into motion a movement which would become a challenge to Church unity. I say unwittingly because in Summorum Pontificum, Ratzinger specifically stated that: “It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were ‘two Rites.’ Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.”

Ratzinger’s theological clarification, however, did not correspond to the understanding of the people who were most avid in their support of the Tridentine Rite. The fact that they clearly saw it as a separate rite was obvious to me in 1993, and it was just as obvious to Pope Francis twenty-eight years later. If that were not the case, there would be no reason to issue Traditionis Custodes as a course correction for Summorum Pontificum. Ratzinger himself admits a distinction between his own interpretation and that of those who applauded Summorum Pontificum when he writes:

Fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level…This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion.[4]

It is certainly true that liturgical abuse in the wake of Vatican II led to a desire for a more stable, dependable rendition of the Mass, but this is only part of the story. Another part is schism, which saw the abuses as a justification for breaking Church unity. I dealt with this attitude in a way that was up close and personal during the hours-long discussion I had with Bishop Williamson when I met with him at Wimbledon. Sitting on his desk was a letter from Rome which stated “I accept Vatican II in light of tradition” which would have ended the schism if he had signed it. After explaining to me that Archbishop Lefebvre would in fact have signed that document, Bishop Williamson spent the next three hours explaining to me why he would not. The answer is the sin of schism, refusal to accept communion out of fear of contamination, and ultimately lack of charity, all of which could be summed up as part of the mystery of iniquity.


If the SSPXers were not going to sign a document ending the schism which Archbishop Lefebvre would have signed, they are certainly not going to accept Ratzinger’s metaphysical distinction between two forms and one rite. At that point the metaphysical exigencies that necessarily determine choice take over. Synderesis specifies that we can only choose what we perceive to be the good. If Catholics are faced with a choice between what they perceive as two contradictory rites, no matter how much Ratzinger argues to the contrary, they have to choose one or the other. If they choose one, they affirm that it is true or truer than its alternative and therefore good or better, and this necessarily leads to division in the Church.

In the 13 years since the implementation of Summorum Pontificium, those who have persisted in attending the Latin Mass have become convinced of its superiority, or they would have stopped attending it. Conviction of its superiority leads inexorably to the invidious conclusion that the vernacular Mass is inferior per se, which then leads the Latin Masser to question Vatican II, which then leads to doubt about the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding the Church, as Pope Francis pointed out in his motu proprio. All of these consequences flowed inexorably from Ratzinger’s expansion of accessibility to the Latin Mass, even if they did not correspond to his intentions. Ideas have consequences, as Richard Weaver pointed out, and most of them are unintended. Even if they thought of it as a standard and a unifying force, the Traditionalists had weaponized the Latin Mass, and their opponents in the intramural culture wars in the Catholic Church weren’t going to let them get away with it.

Missing from Pope Francis’s motu proprio or the immediate reactions to it was any mention of an article on liturgical reform by Rev. Thomas Reese, SJ., which appeared in America, the Jesuits’ magazine, and subsequently on the Religious News Service website in April of this year. Reese provoked outrage when he stated in no uncertain terms that “The church [sic] needs to be clear that it wants the unreformed liturgy to disappear and will only allow it out of pastoral kindness to older people who do not understand the need for change. Children and young people should not be allowed to attend such Masses.”[5]

Reese is a Senior Analyst for the National Catholic Reporter, where he has worked since 2013. He was Editor-in-Chief of America magazine from 1998 to 2005, when he got fired for being so heterodox that even the Jesuits couldn’t defend him. On May 12, 2016, President Barack Obama appointed him to serve on the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, USCIRF, where he worked with Dr. Robert P. George, the Princeton professor who inhabits the other end of the political spectrum. Both Reese and George are active participants in the Catholic version of Kabuki theater, an art form “characterized more by showmanship than by content,”[6] than%20by%20content. in which liberals go through the motions of fighting conservatives, while both groups remain silent about real issues like the Jewish Question. So, USCIRF member Robbie George will endorse the views of his friend Rabbi Meir Solveichik, who claimed in First Things that hatred was a Jewish virtue without telling us that the magazine which promoted that form of hate speech was created and funded by Midge Dector and Norman Podhoretz, the power couple of Jewish neoconservatism. Similarly, a close reading of Father Reese’s proposals for liturgical reform which appeared in America in April of 2021 shows that the Jesuits were behind the motu proprio of Pope Francis, but it doesn’t tell us who is behind the Jesuits. The answer to that question must be sought elsewhere, but it was answered in part when we learned that George Soros’s Open Society Foundation has lavished \$1.7 million on Jesuit NGOs over the past few years.[7]

The furor surrounding Traditionis Custodes shed light on the forces which have been involved in a decades-long manipulation of the Latin Mass for political purposes, and it also brought to light the fault lines that had appeared in the movement during this period. In his article on Traditionis Custodes, Erik Striker indicated that the forces behind the Jesuits might not be limited to Jews like George Soros. He also indicated why the Jews are upset with the Latin Mass, and why they think their Jesuit proxy warriors needed to take immediate action against it:

A Catholic intellectual who insisted on not being named told National Justice that works by E. Michael Jones and Father Denis Fahey are influential among young traditional Catholics, something that has even caused them to clash behind the scenes with the neo-conservative “old guard” in the Latin Mass movement. This has started to attract heat from Jewish organizations. Occasionally, the backroom fights become public, such as the incident last year where Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades in South Bend, Indiana launched a nasty public attack against E. Michael Jones for his “anti-Semitism.”[8] xXCSfJLsskFs14p90R0SdLSJMWqA

The Miraculous Mass of St. Gregory, 6th Century by Hans Baldung, Strassburg, Germany 1511
The Miraculous Mass of St. Gregory, 6th Century by Hans Baldung, Strassburg, Germany 1511

Aside from the fact that I was not named in Bishop Rhoades’ pastoral letter on anti-Semitism, Striker’s comment corresponds to my experience as an observer who has found himself on the fringe of Traditionalism for almost 40 years now. Traditionalism had become a hideout for people who were afraid to say the word Jew. That fact has now become obvious to the younger generation of Latin Massers. One day after the motu proprio was promulgated, I posted a comment “Traditionalism has always been a way of avoiding the Jewish Question. Now it looks as if a younger generation of Latin Massers has made that impossible. This may be the real cause of the crackdown.”

The main cause for that change was my book The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History, whose fame spread among a generation of younger Traditionalists, whose numbers have grown internationally in recent years at seminaries, convents, and parishes like the FSSP parish where I had the pleasure of meeting a seminarian who was writing a book on the most important symbolic and theological aspects of the Traditional Roman Liturgy. His research showed that the move to the vernacular served as a cover for removing any passages which Jews might find offensive, something which seemed perfectly plausible to a group of people who were familiar with the thesis of The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit. As the word spread, the older generation of neoconservative Traditionalists faced a serious challenge. The re-emergence of the Jewish Question, over 100 years after its appearance in the pages of Civilta Cattolica and 50 years after its suppression at Vatican II, was a classic example of the return of the repressed. The younger generation of Traditionalists had broken the Jew Taboo imposed on them by the Neocon commissars from New York.

Any doubts about the real reason for the suppression of the Latin Mass disappeared a few days after the issuance of Traditionis Custodes when the Times of Israel announced that Pope Francis had restricted the use of the Latin Mass because it “calls for the conversion of the Jews” and referred to “Jewish ‘blindness.’” What Francis referred to as Vatican II comes down to Nostra Aetate, which comes down to the claim, unsupported by that document, that “the Jews were not guilty of killing Jesus.”[9] The Jews had determined that the suppression of the Latin Mass was necessary because, according to the same unsupported source, “Accusations that the Jews killed Jesus have long motivated antisemitic attacks.”[10]

Every player in this story, from Pope Francis on down, is a pawn of Jewish interests. The Latin Mass has become weaponized once again, this time by the Jews and their Jesuit proxy warriors. The second weaponization of the Latin Mass by the liberals was simply a function of the first weaponization which the neoconservatives perpetrated in the wake of Ecclesia Dei. The one canceled out the other in a way that manifested the Holy Spirit’s determination to guide the Church in spite of the imperfect intentions of His ministers. Pope Francis chose unity as a higher good but for the wrong reasons, because of Jewish pressure exerted on the Jesuits, the Jews’ main group of proxy warriors in the Church of our day, bringing to light in a way that can only be described as the cunning of reason the real issue, which is the Jewish Question. Traditionis Custodes could be seen as an example of God countermanding the intentions of the actors in this drama in a way that not only preserves the Church from error but also focuses our attention on the real cause of disunity in the Church, which has gone unmentioned for far too long.

Germany 1947, “We Are Starving,” “We Don’t Want Calories, We Want Bread.”
Germany 1947, “We Are Starving,” “We Don’t Want Calories, We Want Bread.”

The main issue which remains unresolved in the wake of Traditionis Custodes is the suppression of what people like Abe Foxman, who thanked the pope for suppressing the Latin Mass, would consider anti-Semitic texts in the liturgy. In the traditional rite for Tenebrae or Matins on Good Friday, the faithful listened to this passage taken from St. Augustine:

Nostis qui convéntus erat malignántium Iudæórum, et quæ multitúdo erat operántium iniquitátem. Quam iniquitátem? Quia voluérunt occídere Dóminum Iesum Christum. Tanta ópera bona, inquit, osténdi vobis: propter quod horum me vultis occídere? Pértulit omnes infírmos eórum, curávit omnes lánguidos eórum, prædicávit regnum cælórum, non tácuit vítia eórum, ut ipsa pótius eis displicérent, non médicus, a quo sanabántur. His ómnibus curatiónibus eius ingráti, tamquam multa febre phrenétici, insaniéntes in médicum, qui vénerat curáre eos, excogitavérunt consílium perdéndi eum: tamquam ibi voléntes probáre, utrum vere homo sit, qui mori possit, an áliquid super hómines sit, et mori se non permíttat. Verbum ipsórum agnóscimus in Sapiéntia Salomónis: Morte turpíssima, ínquiunt, condemnémus eum. Interrogémus eum: erit enim respéctus in sermónibus illíus. Si enim vere Fílius Dei est, líberet eum.

Reading Five should have been translated into the vernacular as:

We know what secret counsel was that of the wicked Jews, and what insurrection was that of the workers of iniquity. Of what iniquity were they the workers? The murder of our Lord Jesus Christ. Many good works, saith He, have I showed you for which of those works go ye about to kill Me? He had borne with all their weaknesses: He had healed all their diseases: He had preached unto them the kingdom of heaven: He had discovered to them their iniquities, that they might rather hate them, than the Phydom of Solomon we recognize their words, Let us condemn Him with a shameful death. Let us examine Him; for, by His own saying, He shall be respected. If He be the Son of God, let Him help Him.

The response which follows has the congregation say:

R. The Jews crucified Jesus: and there was darkness (over all the land, unto the ninth hour): and about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, (saying): My God, (My God,) why hast Thou forsaken Me?

Reading 6 continues in the same vein:

They whetted their tongue like a sword. The Jews cannot say: We did not murder Christ, albeit they gave Him over to Pilate His judge, that they themselves might seem free of His death. For when Pilate said unto them, Take ye Him: and kill Him, they answered, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death. They could throw the blame of their sin upon a human judge: but did they deceive God, the Great Judge? In that which Pilate did, he was their accomplice, but in comparison with them, he had far the lesser sin. John xix. 11. Pilate strove as far as he could, to deliver Him out of their hands; for which reason also he scourged Him, John xix. 1, and brought Him forth to them He scourged not the Lord for cruelty’s sake, but in the hope that; he might so slake their wild thirst for blood: that, perchance, even they might be touched with compassion, and cease to lust for His death, when they saw What He was after the flagellation. Even this effort he made! But when Pilate saw that he could not prevail, but that rather a tumult was made, Matth. xxvii. 24, ye know how that he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying: I am innocent of the blood of this Just Person. And yet he delivered Him to be crucified! But if he were guilty who did it against his will, were they innocent; who goaded him on to it? No. Pilate gave sentence against Him. and commanded Him to be crucified. But ye, O ye Jews, ye also are His murderers! Wherewith? With your tongue, whetted like a sword. And when? But when ye cried, Crucify Him! Crucify Him!

The seminarian, now a priest, maintains that:

the Novus Ordo Missae was never merely a translation of the Traditional Latin Mass. If it were merely a matter of language, then it would not be so controversial right now. Please do not take merely anecdotal evidence of rad trads to oversimplify what is a twisted tale in history and needs reiteration in a one-stop-shop format. The story of the many attempts to subvert Vatican 2 are now well-documented in books like T he Rhine Flows into the Tiber and John Courtney Murray, Time, Life, and the CIA and many others.[11]John Courtney Murray, Time/Life and the American Proposition:

How the CIA’s Doctrinal Warfare Program Changed the Catholic

Church by David Wemhoff
What must be made clear though is that over 2,000 bishops never called for the end of the traditional rite and the composition of a new one. You will find in Sacrosanctum Concilium rather things like: “in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way” (emphasis in original).

In an article which appeared in First Things, Martin Mosebach claims that:

Pope Francis was mistaken in his assessment of both the canonical reality and the intent of Pope Benedict XVI in issuing Summorum Pontificum. Pope Benedict XVI, in his Last Testament, was asked directly whether or not he issued Summorum Pontificum primarily as a concession to the SSPX to heal their schism. To that question, the Pope Emeritus responded: “No, no, no! That is just absolutely false! It was important for me that the Church is one with herself inwardly, with her own past; that what was previously holy to her is not somehow wrong now… my intentions were not of a tactical nature, they were about the substance of the matter itself” (emphasis in original).

Ratzinger then reiterated what he had told the founders of the FSSP back in 1988 when he said that the Lefebvrite Schism was:

the kairos (opportune time) to begin the clarification that the traditional Roman Catholic Liturgy was never and could never be abrogated since it is of immemorial tradition. The SSPX is gleefully repeating the lie that Summorum Pontificum was merely a concession granted to them. It was an opportunity to make it clear in law

that the Mass of the Ages was never abrogated and therefore every priest of the Roman Rite has the right to offer that Mass. Pope Francis was incorrect in stating that SP granted a faculty. That is simply not true. Pope Benedict XVI was clarifying that priests do not need special permission to offer the Mass of the Ages. So that is a canonical concern.[12]


Our source in the FSSP then cites this quote from Cardinal Ratzinger in the introduction to Dom Alcuin Reid’s The Organic Development of the Liturgy as particularly important for understanding the real crisis of the recent document regardless of the external factors that led to its promulgation:

From my own personal point of view I should like to give further particular emphasis to some of the criteria for liturgical renewal thus briefly indicated. I will begin with those last two main criteria. It seems to me most important that the Catechism, in mentioning the limitation of the powers of the supreme authority in the Church with regard to reform, recalls to mind what is the essence of the primacy as outlined by the First and Second Vatican Councils: The pope is not an absolute monarch whose will is law; rather, he is the guardian of the authentic Tradition and, thereby, premier guarantor of obedience. He cannot do as he likes, and he is thereby able to oppose those people who, for their part, want to do whatever comes into their head. His rule is not that of arbitrary power, but that of obedience in faith. That is why, with respect to the Liturgy, he has the task of a gardener, not that of a technician who builds new machines and throw the old ones on the junk-pile. The “rite,” that form of celebration and prayer which has ripened in the faith and the life of the Church, is a condensed form of living Tradition in which the sphere using that rite expresses the whole of its faith and its prayer, and thus at the same time the fellowship of generations one with another becomes something we can experience, fellowship

with the people who pray before us and after us. Thus the rite is something of benefit that is given to the Church, a living form of paradosis, the handing-on of Tradition. (My emphasis.)

The FSSP priest’s response to Traditionis Custodes rightly places Pope Benedict XVI at the center of this drama. But the situation is more complicated than he allows. Even if we grant the argument that Ratzinger was trying to reform the vernacular liturgy rather than just allow, as Ecclesia Dei claimed, the indult to keep the Lefebvrites from following the Latin Mass into schism, questions remain. If the vernacular liturgy was radically flawed, why didn’t Ratzinger make use of the opportunity which Summorum Pontificium provided to abolish it completely and return to the old rite? If, on the other hand, the vernacular liturgy was reformable, why didn’t he reform it by restoring the “anti-Semitic” texts which got banned under the subterfuge of translation?

The answer, I fear, lies in the depths of Pope Benedict XVI’s passive aggressive personality, a trait which came to the fore when he resigned. Like suicide, which is an act of violence against the living, resigning from the papacy was an act of violence against the Body of the Church. Joseph Ratzinger was a teenager who had been conscripted into the Heimwehr just before World War II ended. After their defeat, the German people were subjected to nothing short of genocide at the hands of the Jews who sought to starve the German people to death under the guise of the Morgenthau Plan, named after Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Jewish Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau. Hundreds of thousands of German soldiers were starved to death in the notorious Rheinwiesenlager[13] because General Eisenhower refused to treat them as prisoners of war so that he would not have to follow the Geneva conventions guaranteeing humane treatment. “During the first months of 1947, according to James Bacque, daily rations for the German population were ‘often less than 1,000 calories.’[14]James Bacque, Crimes and Mercies: The Fate of German Civilians Under Allied Occupation, 1944-1950 (London: Warner Books, 1997), p. 125.

Joseph Ratzinger lived through the winter of 1946-7, which came to be known as the Hungerjahr, when Cardinal Frings of Cologne told the German people that they had a right to appropriate food from Allied warehouses and coal from Allied trains as a way of defending themselves from Jewish aggression. He did not mention the Jews, but every German alive at that time knew that Morgenthau was a Jew, and every German knew that what he intended for the German people was nothing less than their extinction. Germania delenda est! Theodor N. Kaufman wrote a book before the war entitled Germany Must Perish, which called for the biological destruction of the German people, and Morgenthau’s attempt to starve the Germans to death was the first stage in its implementation.[15]Cf. E. Michael Jones, Logos Rising, pp. 569ff.

Pope Benedict’s Great Uncle

As I wrote in the second edition of The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, Catholicism as practiced in the wake of Vatican II was not an unclouded mirror of Catholic tradition, it had its inconsistencies and self-contradictions. A coherent position on the Jews had to be mined from the deposit of faith and the writing of the evangelists and the Church Fathers. As early as 1892, Georg Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI’s great uncle, had not only carried the teaching of the Church on the Jews known as Sicut Judaeis non into the present, he had applied it to the economic crisis that was gripping Europe at that time:

The great medieval popes Innocent III and Gregory IX as well as the ecclesial synods and councils felt themselves called to take legal measures against the excesses of the Jews. They protected the life and existence of the Jews, but …. the Jews had to recognize the Christian social order The answer, I fear, lies in the depths of Pope Benedict XVI’s passive aggressive personality, a trait which came to the fore when he resigned. September 2021 / 29 and had to submit themselves to it. Whatever they had appropriated through usury and exploitation, they had to pay back to their victims. They were not allowed to occupy the choke points in the culture … Jews were in no way allowed to undermine the Christian social order. Jews who defamed Christ or Christians were punished. They were not allowed to do business on Christian holidays . . . and were not allowed to make usurious loans. During Holy Week they had to remain in their homes.

Traditional Catholicism provides the only coherent explanation of what came to be known in Georg Ratzinger’s day as the Jewish Question. The explanation is fairly simple. Following Napoleon’s emancipation of the Jews, they took over the economies of one nation after another in Europe because of their sharp business practices. What Ratzinger calls “Juedisches Erwerbsleben” allowed them to cheat the Christian natives, who had been taught to work hard, be trusting, and love their neighbor.[16]Robert Waldhausen (Georg Ratzinger) op. cit. The German Wikipedia page on Robert Waldhausen identifies him as Georg Ratzinger. Their explanation follows:Georg Ratzinger werden aber auch die beiden nachfolgend genannten pseudonym veröffentlichten antisemitischen Hetzschriften zugeschrieben. Zwar kann Ratzingers Identität mit deren beiden Verfasserpseudonymen nicht anhand schriftlicher Zeugnisse belegt werden, jedoch gilt sie in der Forschung auf Grund von Indizien als gesichert und wird nicht in Frage gestellt. Unter dem Pseudonym “Dr. Robert Waldhausen” erschien 1892 das Buch Jüdisches Erwerbsleben. Skizzen aus dem sozialen Leben der Gegenwart, in dessen Einleitung es z. B. heißt: Die Emanzipation der Juden […] konnte nicht anders, als zerstörend und zersetzend auf die ganze christliche Gesellschaft wirken. Und 1897 wurde unter dem Pseudonym “Dr. Gottfried Wolf” ein antisemitisches Pamphlet mit dem Titel Das Judentum in Bayern. Skizzen aus der Vergangenheit und Vorschläge für die Zukunft publiziert. Auch in anderen, nicht pseudonym veröffentlichten Schriften Ratzingers, z. B. in Die Volkswirthschaft in ihren sittlichen Grundlagen, und in seinen Parlamentsreden lassen sich antisemitische Äußerungen und Tendenzen finden. 17 Georg Ratzinger, Juedisches Erwerbsleben: Skizzen aus dem sozialen Leben der Gegenwart (Passau: Verlag von Rudolf Abt, 1892). pp. 1-2. All translations from the German are mine. 18 Cf. E. Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, Vol. II (South Bend, IN: Fidelity Press, 2020), pp. 152ff. Jewish immorality, in other words, gave the Jews an unfair economic advantage in Catholic countries. According to Georg Ratzinger:

The emancipation of the Jews, whose views and concepts contradicted the laws and customs of the Christian nations, could not help but have a destructive and corrupting effect on the entire Christian society…. This fact alone explains why Jews were able to accumulate riches so quickly…. The example of moral corruption has a contagious effect, and that explains the corrupting effect of Jewish influence on commerce.

It was an act of supreme foolishness when in the years following 1789 the necessary protections for the social order were lifted immediately and universally. Once this happened it was only a matter of time before the Jews with their attitude toward business and commerce would gain the upper hand. This was particularly the case among the benevolent peoples who made up the population of Catholic nations…. Others fell into the hands of the usurers and in spite of their frugality could not extricate themselves from its tentacles. Just about everyone was impoverished; and only the Jews got rich.[17]

Rev. Joseph Ratzinger at a Mountain Site Near the Bavarian Town of Ruhpolding, Germany, 1952
Rev. Joseph Ratzinger at a Mountain Site Near the Bavarian Town of Ruhpolding, Germany, 1952

Ratzinger’s book on economics appeared in 1892, around the same time as Rerum Novarum, Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical on the condition of the working classes, and the three-part series in Civiltà Cattolica which warned Catholics about “the voracious octopus of Judaism.”[18] The anger at Jewish business practices had reached the boiling point:

The situation of the lucrative professions is totally different. In a few years, riches are amassed but at the cost of others. This form of profit is obscene, and the hatred and revulsion which the working classes feel toward these practices is fully justified. Envy isn’t the cause of this hatred, but rather indignation at the unjust appropriation of value; that and the perception that this unjust appropriation constitutes an assault on the foundations of social life, evokes in the breast of the honest working man, bitter feelings. When the industrious and skilled worker, the honest civil servant, and the circumspect merchant in spite of all out exertion can’t earn a living, when on the other hand this or that speculator, without any effort, can earn thousands or hundreds of thousands through the issuing of government bonds, then this is a sign that the economic organism is so diseased that society is in urgent need of medicine and reform.[19]Georg Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 3.

“The solution to the Jewish question” lies in the application of the traditional Catholic teachings like Sicut Judaeis non. That means “not in allowing Christians in general to sink to the level of the lucrative occupations, but rather in raising the Jews to a higher sense of productive work, in higher numbers than is the present case, to the level of Christian mores as propounded by Christian teaching on commerce and property.” And that means rejecting anti-Semitism. Georg Ratzinger “totally” rejected:

the anti-Semitism that is now being proposed . . . in Austria and by a number of the exalted German nationalists. Anti-Semitism understood as a matter of race stands in total contradiction to the Commandment of love of neighbor, without regard to race or national origin. On the other hand, it is the duty of every true Christian and patriot to take a stand against the dangerous errors of numerous Jews in the business world and to warn their fellow Christians about the dangerous illusions of the philosemites who predominate among the ruling elites.[20]Georg Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 5.

Those who today accuse Georg Ratzinger of anti-Semitism ignore the fact that Jews from Heinrich Graetz to Samuel Roth have said far worse things about the Jewish business ethics which the Ashkenazi have learned from the Talmud. According to Roth, the Jews are taught that they are “the salt of the earth” and that everything they:

see before them . . . is only to be won away with the superior brain with which God has endowed his chosen ones? Each of them, when he grows up, becomes an agency of cunning to defeat the civil law. The Polish Jew does not remain in Poland. He migrates. Eventually he finds himself a rich nest in England, in France, in Germany, in America, in one of the South American countries. To each of the counties of his invasion the Jew brings the whole bag of commercial tricks and statutory maneuvers with which he poisons the arteries of the civilized world.[21]Samuel Roth, Jews Must Live: An Account of the Persecution of the World by Israel on all the Frontiers of Civilization (No place of publication, 1934), p. 34.

their internalization of Talmudic culture had allowed them to become “skilled in the deceptions of economic warfare”:

It was to be expected that the Jews, who with centuries of practice became skilled in the deceptions of economic warfare and acquired the arts of exploitation to perfection, it was to be expected that they would take center stage under the regime of free competition.

Jewish commerce can be characterized by two manifestations: it is based on the exploitation of the work of others without any productive activity of its own and it is characterized by gambling and speculation on the differentials in exchange as the way to achieve riches. The Christian view is the opposite. Christianity ensures decency in commerce by promoting honest toil or by promoting honest inheritance. Christianity forbids the exploitation of one’s neighbor through excessive economic power and insists on the subordination of the good of the individual to the common good, as well as concern for the economically vulnerable. There is a direct contradiction between Christianity and Judaism, and any Christian community which allows the unrestrained exercise of Jewish business practices is committing suicide.[22]Georg Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 11. Jewish business practices are totally antithetical to the economy of a Christian culture, which is based on an understanding and appreciation of the value of work:

In the instruction manuals from the Middle Ages, the people were taught that “Man is born to work, as the bird is created to fly.” The Catholic Church raised the nations under her care to be workers and made earning by work the foundation of our civilization. There is only one way of earning a living which is worthy of respect and esteem, and that is earning a living by toil, whether that entails labor of a physical or an intellectual sort. It makes no difference whether this labor takes place on the lowest rung of the economic ladder among day-laborers or among the professions of the elite. In doing this the Church erected civilization upon an entirely new foundation. The pagan world proposed a life lived at the expense of others (slavery); Judaism preached preferential treatment for its own people but permitted the exploitation and practicing usury on alien nations. And until this day Jewish business practices exhibit this dual nature. On the one hand, we see concern for the family and for his fellow Jew, but on the other a totally heartless exploitation via usury of the goyim, which becomes the source of the wealth accumulated by Jewish billionaires. . . . The ancient principle of the Catholic Church, which only honors commerce when it is based on honest work, is drowned out by the Jewish screeching which encourages speculation and gambling on the stock market.[23]Georg Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 38.

The emancipation of the Jews dealt a fatal blow to the Christian social order. That is another way of saying that the social question (the exploitation of the worker, usury’s appropriation of land, etc.) can only be solved by dealing with the Jewish Question, which can only be solved by bringing about the conversion of the Jews, either completely through baptism, or formally by forcing their behavior to conform to Christian custom, as specified by Sicut Judaeis non. There is no point, according to Ratzinger, in dealing with an economic factor like state credit in isolation, especially

when private persons determine the terms of credit. Jewish banks are now in the process of using state credit as a way of taking control of all industrial production. Herein lies the secret of the omnipotence of modern capitalist hegemony with all of its cancerous growth. Any social reform has to begin with the state establishing its independence from private equity firms as its source of credit. Only then will the source of capitalism’s debilitating excesses be contained. To call anything else social reform is a waste of time.

By the last decade of the 19th century, it had become clear to thinkers like Georg Ratzinger that the laws enacted in the wake of the Enlightenment and its concomitant revolutions spelled economic disaster for Europe. The only solution to the economic crisis was a return to Christian-inspired state regulation of the economy. “The Jews,” Ratzinger opined,

must once again learn to subordinate themselves to Christian social reform and to conform their business practices to Christian norms. All of the money which they have earned through state-sanctioned usury and the exploitation of the worker must be returned to the people. The legislatures must now criminalize all of the fraud and exploitation which now has established itself under the rubric of free enterprise. The state needs to prosecute in a public manner all forms of usury and fraudulent exploitation. The current laws against usury and fraud are much too one-sided, and they do not correspond either to the experience or the plain sense of Christian jurisprudence.

Georg Ratzinger was especially prophetic when he wrote in 1892:

A reaction against the jewification of our culture is now building momentum among the common man. That movement is hardly perceptible today, but it is going to grow like an avalanche. That movement would be irresistible at this very moment if it weren’t lacking a leader. [Ratzinger’s word was, of course the German word “Fuehrer,” which took on a new dimension some 40 years later.]

Joseph Ratzinger lived to see the terrifying realizations of his great uncle’s prophecies. Joseph Ratzinger turned 20 in April of 1947, just as the Hungerjahr was ending and at around the same time that the WASP elite, which was still in charge of American Foreign policy at the time, dumped the Morgenthau Plan and replaced it with the Marshall Plan as belated recognition that America needed the Germans as a bulwark against Communism in the newly inaugurated Cold War. The social engineering which followed the abandoned Morgenthau plan was even more ruthless because it was based on the systematic subversion of German morals through the introduction of pornography, as I documented in the “Werner Heisenberg and Jewish Science” chapter of Logos Rising. Jews like the New York psychiatrist David Mardechai Levy were in charge of this newer more “benign” form of social engineering as well. American social engineering led to the campaign against the Volkswartbund, which was the German version of the Legion of Decency, and the collapse of that organization was followed by a wave of pornography which severely damaged German morals.

The evidence of moral corruption which I uncovered in “Werner Heisenberg and Jewish Science” was hardly news to the Ratzinger family. As early as 1892,

Pope Benedict’s great uncle, Georg Ratzinger, wrote that “seduction and crime were the main components of Jewish commerce”:

When the scions of wealthy families go astray, the easiest way to find the culprit responsible is to seek him among the Jews. … he encourages the acting out of all base desires and the adoption of degenerate lifestyles; he is the fence and the pimp. Once he has established his influence over his rich young protégé, he encourages him to speculate on the stock market in order to win back the money he squandered on his vices. In this way the Jew brings about his complete ruin in a few years, which is when his fortune ends up in hands of his Jewish seducer. Anyone who is familiar with the realities of social life in Paris, Vienna, and Pest sees this sort of thing all the time.

According to Pope Benedict, his uncle Ratzinger was a clergyman with a doctorate in theology, and a “representative in the Bavarian state legislature and in the Reichstag,” who openly “attacked child labor,” which at the time was considered an “affront” by “many,” and “was unheard of.” Pope Benedict told Peter Seewald in an interview that he had read about this himself in congressional records. Rev. Ratzinger was also an advocate for the rights of farmers and the average man in general, “He was obviously a tough guy,” and because of “his achievements and his political stature we were all proud of him.”[24]Joseph Kardinal Ratzinger, Salz der Erde: Christentum and katholische Kirch an der Jahrtausendwende (Stuttgart: Deutsche VerlagsAnstalt, 1996), p. 47, my translation.

The same great uncle who risked his position and reputation for the welfare of children was concerned about the well-being of young women as well:

These seductive arts [mentioned above] are closely allied with prostitution. Every aspect of trafficking in young females is firmly in Jewish hands and organized on an international basis. It’s only a short step from this immoral trafficking to criminal activity. When it comes to embezzlement, misappropriation, fraud, usury, blackmail, etc., the Jew is involved to a much greater percentage than the Christian.

Pope Benedict knew all of this and was at the same time deeply ambivalent. Pope Benedict knew that his great uncle had proposed the only viable solution to anti-Semitism 50 years before the catastrophes associate with World War II took place. The solution to the social question can only come about when the Christian idea of commerce has vanquished the Jewish-heathen idea. According to Georg Ratzinger, true protection of the social order is only possible in the confessional state. “Business practice must be made to conform once again to Christian morals”:

clear limits on Judaism in not only necessary for the interests of the Christian nations; it is also in the interest of the Jews themselves. Only when the sane principles of Christian reform have been put in place, can we hope to disarm the specter of anti-Semitic racial hatred. It is only then that we can hope to avoid the path of the violent taking the law into their own hands. Those who think that a small minority of Jews with the help of the power of the state can solve this problem, are deceiving themselves.

To put the case another way, if reform is not forthcoming, the Jews will be the first to suffer because:

The hegemony of social corruption has ended in every age in terror. This solution is no longer plausible. Either we are going to have Christian reform in our future or we are going to have the reign of racial hatred. The Jews should God is using this crisis to expose the real problem which is, as Abe Foxman’s tweet made clear, Jewish control of the Catholic Church. September 2021 / 33 be under no illusions about what they can expect from the racial hatred that is waiting for them in the near future. Their arrogance is going to turn quickly into bitter disappointment in the future.

Pope Francis Shaking Hands With Rabbi David
Pope Francis Shaking Hands With Rabbi David

Georg Ratzinger was aware of the Darwinian notion that life involves struggle among individuals and ethnic groups, but he takes that notion of struggle out of the biological realm and situates it instead in the moral cultural arena, as when he wrote: “Any ethnic group which is totally lacking in moral restraint when it comes to economic life will end up the winner in any struggle for existence. This is the secret of Jewish success in Austria-Hungary.”[25]Georg Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 53. Similarly, Ratzinger affirmed that life is a struggle:

The life of nations is like the life of individuals. He who fails to engage in battle daily to secure his position in society will soon disappear. The Catholics in Austro-Hungary have failed to engage in the daily battle for their possessions, and as a result they lose year after year one institution after another. They have been dispossessed from top to bottom, from their universities as well as their kindergartens. The Jews, who make up less than 10 percent of the population, have as a result of their energetic and unified and self-confident activity won a victory over the 90 percent of the population which is Catholic and have everywhere occupied the positions which the Catholics have abandoned.[26]Georg Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 49.

Pope Benedict should be proud of his great uncle. The real issue is whether the feeling would be reciprocal. Would a man who wrote that “There is nothing more repugnant than having to listen to educated Christians slandering their own people while at the same time glorifying the Jews” be proud of a great nephew who thought Catholic-Jewish dialogue was one of the great achievements of Vatican II? Or a prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who presided over the publication of an apology to the Jews issued by his predecessor? Probably not, because Onkel Georg had written even more pointedly:

There would be no Jewish Question if the educated elites among the Christian peoples hadn’t betrayed their own principles. At a time when Jews stand by even their own criminal element, we see Christian politicians and legislators betraying their own Christian faith on a daily basis and vying with each other to see who has the privilege of harnessing himself to the triumphal car of the Jews. In Parliament no Jew need defend another Jew, when their Christian lackeys do that for them.[27]Georg Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 84.

Georg Ratzinger’s complaint about Christian lackeys was more fitting in 2007 than it was in 1892 because his great nephew, Pope Benedict, feeling simultaneously the guilt foisted on him by Jewish-led social engineering and the German resentment at the corruption of German morals and German economy that the Jews also brought about as part of the instrumentalization of that guilt, could only engage in passive aggressive behavior of the sort which characterized Summorum Pontificum, by resurrecting the Latin liturgy but not translating its more controversial passages into the vernacular.


Similarly, in Georg Ratzinger’s day, when the Catholic confessional state was in power in places like Bavaria and the double monarchy of Austro-Hungary, Catholic elites refused to enforce the (largely economic) laws which protected the weak in a Christian culture. Then came the Thirty Years War (1915-1945) which put the revolutionary elites in power after World War II. By 1960, farseeing church men like Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani saw that European Christian culture needed strengthening against assaults from the Jewish elites in both the East and the West, as represented by Freudianism in the West and Communism in the East. Instead of regaining the initiative, the Catholic Church used the council which Ottaviani persuaded Pope John XXIII to convoke as a way of internalizing the commands of her oppressors. The Church used Dignitatis Humanae as a pretext to abandon the confessional state (even though the document affirms the opposite) and Nostra Aetate as a pretext to abandon its efforts to preach the Gospel to the Jews and work for their conversion.

Confirmation of Pope Benedict’s ambivalence comes from a statement issued by the Discussion Group “Jews and Christians” of the Central Committee of German Catholics issued on “Easter/ Pesach 2007” entitled “The Disruption to Christian-Jewish Relations by the Re-establishment of the Tridentine Rite” which claims that “the demand for the reinstatement of the Tridentine rite . . . is not really a question about the celebration of the Mass in Latin.” It is about the “anti-Semitic” prayers in the pre-1962 rite. Restoration of that Tridentine rite, the joint German-Jewish committee inform us would bring about “a lasting disruption to the Catholic-Jewish Dialogue that began so hopefully at the Second Vatican Council. Many dedicated personal and also theological efforts on both sides would be intentionally damaged. We hope that Pope Benedict XVI will not permit this injury to Christian-Jewish relations to occur” (my emphasis). The key word in that passage is “intentionally.” The German-Jewish dialoguers were saying that Pope Benedict’s expansion of the Latin Mass was intended as an attempt to restore the historical continuity which was broken by the Jewish interpretation of Nostra Aetate. Ultimately, the question of intention is irrelevant. The fact that Ratzinger ignored this warning and re-instated the Latin Rite shows that he was fully aware of what he was doing and that the restoration of the Latin Mass was his passive-aggressive way of reopening the Jewish Question.

After Pope Benedict issued Summorum Pontificum in July 2007, the Jewish response to what Rabbi David Rosen referred to as “an internal Catholic matter” was unanimous. This wasn’t about Latin it was about Jews like Rabbi David Rosen, who was “concerned about how wider use of this Tridentine liturgy may impact upon how Jews are perceived and treated.” ADL capo Abe Foxman made a comment that was even more direct:

We are extremely disappointed and deeply offended that nearly 40 years after the Vatican rightly removed insulting anti-Jewish language from the Good Friday Mass, that it would now permit Catholics to utter such hurtful and insulting words by praying for Jews to be converted. This is a theological setback in the religious life of Catholics and a body blow to Catholic-Jewish relations. It is the wrong decision at the wrong time. It appears the Vatican has chosen to satisfy a right-wing faction in the Church that rejects change and reconciliation.

The result was a time bomb which exploded 13 years later when the Jews complained to the Jesuits. What looks like a catastrophe for the Latin Massers is really the cunning of reason. The Holy Spirit will not abandon His Church. God is using this crisis to expose the real problem which is, as Abe Foxman’s tweet made clear, Jewish control of the Catholic Church. As Georg Ratzinger pointed out, echoing the Fathers of the Church, her Popes and encyclicals, “Business practice must be made to conform once again to Christian morals” or Christians will become Jews:

Intoxicated by revolution, Christian nations have pawned their most precious jewel – the teaching and the grace of their savior – and have rejected their most precious asset, their character as redeemed children of the Lord, by abandoning the Christian basis for their culture. The Lord as a result has let the Christian nations go their own way, which has led to the debt bondage which flows from the obdurate hegemony of capital, which will end up concentrated in the hands of a small minority of Jews and their lackeys.

Christian countries must either enforce the laws (e.g. living wage, the prohibition against usury, child labor, etc.) which were erected by the state to protect Christian culture against the Jews who were the cutting edge of capitalist subversion or become like the Jews, revolutionaries themselves. As Georg Ratzinger wrote, the problem is the Talmud, which is the ultimate source of all sharp Jewish business practices. The Jew:

precisely because of the influence of the Talmud, is universally a force for corruption and destruction. Wherever one finds elements of dissatisfaction which threaten to overturn the Christian social order, Jews jump to the forefront of the movement and adopt the role of agitator.

Just as Jewish internalization of Talmudic culture causes them to become revolutionaries, Catholic counter-revolution flows from Catholic morality, Catholic teaching and an honest liturgy which incorporates the wisdom of the Church fathers even when those views cause concern in a corrupt culture. The attack on the Latin Mass is incomprehensible without an understanding of the Jewish Question as its source and hidden grammar. The Jews need to control the Mass as their way of protecting what Georg Ratzinger called Jewish business practices.

The Church, as I have said, many times before, can have unity or she can have good relations with the Jews, but she can’t have both. For the past 60 years, the hierarchy has chosen good relations with the Jews, with disastrous consequences for Church unity. Traditionis Custodes rightly points out the lack of unity in the Church today, but ascribes that lack of unity to a symptom, the Latin Mass, and not the cause, which is the all-but-universal refusal to preach the gospel as it applies to the Jews. Traditionis Custodes makes this point when it mentions the importance of the lex orandi, but it fails to trace the disastrous consequences of this manipulation of the lex orandi back to its source in embarrassment at the anti-Jewish gospel which is the fons et origo of the liturgy and the source of our current disunity.




[3] E. Michael Jones, “Why Bishop Sullivan . . . ,” Fidelity, February 1993, pp. 17-8.



[6],by%20showmanship%20 than%20by%20content.


[8] xXCSfJLsskFs14p90R0SdLSJMWqA



[11] John Courtney Murray, Time/Life and the American Proposition:

How the CIA’s Doctrinal Warfare Program Changed the Catholic

Church by David Wemhoff



[14] James Bacque, Crimes and Mercies: The Fate of German Civilians Under Allied Occupation, 1944-1950 (London: Warner Books, 1997), p. 125.

[15] Cf. E. Michael Jones, Logos Rising, pp. 569ff.

[16] Robert Waldhausen (Georg Ratzinger) op. cit. The German Wikipedia page on Robert Waldhausen identifies him as Georg Ratzinger. Their explanation follows:Georg Ratzinger werden aber auch die beiden nachfolgend genannten pseudonym veröffentlichten antisemitischen Hetzschriften zugeschrieben. Zwar kann Ratzingers Identität mit deren beiden Verfasserpseudonymen nicht anhand schriftlicher Zeugnisse belegt werden, jedoch gilt sie in der Forschung auf Grund von Indizien als gesichert und wird nicht in Frage gestellt. Unter dem Pseudonym “Dr. Robert Waldhausen” erschien 1892 das Buch Jüdisches Erwerbsleben. Skizzen aus dem sozialen Leben der Gegenwart, in dessen Einleitung es z. B. heißt: Die Emanzipation der Juden […] konnte nicht anders, als zerstörend und zersetzend auf die ganze christliche Gesellschaft wirken. Und 1897 wurde unter dem Pseudonym “Dr. Gottfried Wolf” ein antisemitisches Pamphlet mit dem Titel Das Judentum in Bayern. Skizzen aus der Vergangenheit und Vorschläge für die Zukunft publiziert. Auch in anderen, nicht pseudonym veröffentlichten Schriften Ratzingers, z. B. in Die Volkswirthschaft in ihren sittlichen Grundlagen, und in seinen Parlamentsreden lassen sich antisemitische Äußerungen und Tendenzen finden. 17 Georg Ratzinger, Juedisches Erwerbsleben: Skizzen aus dem sozialen Leben der Gegenwart (Passau: Verlag von Rudolf Abt, 1892). pp. 1-2. All translations from the German are mine. 18 Cf. E. Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, Vol. II (South Bend, IN: Fidelity Press, 2020), pp. 152ff.

[19] Georg Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 3.

[20] Georg Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 5.

[21] Samuel Roth, Jews Must Live: An Account of the Persecution of the World by Israel on all the Frontiers of Civilization (No place of publication, 1934), p. 34.

[22] Georg Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 11.

[23] Georg Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 38.

[24] Joseph Kardinal Ratzinger, Salz der Erde: Christentum and katholische Kirch an der Jahrtausendwende (Stuttgart: Deutsche VerlagsAnstalt, 1996), p. 47, my translation.

[25] Georg Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 53.

[26] Georg Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 49.

[27] Georg Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 84.

(Republished from Culture Wars by permission of author or representative)
• Category: History, Ideology • Tags: Catholic Church, Political Correctness 
Hide 11 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. anarchyst says:

    I’ve been saying this for multiple decades, ever since the Vatican II Ecumenical Council changes were imposed on the Church. To wit:
    The beginning of the end of traditional Catholicism was sealed with the infiltration of the Catholic Church Vatican II Ecumenical Council of the 1960s by Jews and Protestants who were involved in the “modernization” of the Catholic Church.
    Much Catholic ritual and doctrine was discarded or changed, in order to reflect the “age” that we live in, as well as the promotion of the absolution of the Jews for Jesus Christ’s crucifixion and death, despite vitriolic Talmudic Jewish hatred of Jesus Christ and Christianity which exists to this day. The fact is, the Jews DID get the Romans to crucify Jesus Christ and DID accept full responsibility for his crucifixion and death. As is the case today, they got others (Pontius Pilate) to do their “dirty work” for them…
    Abandoning the use of Latin in the Mass destroyed its universality. Previous to Vatican II, one could attend Mass anywhere in the Roman Catholic world and understand the meaning of the Mass.
    Prohibition of the celebration of the Tridentine Mass (except by special ecclesiastical permission) pushed many Catholics away from the new Modern Mass and the New Church, in general. It took a brave Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X to push back” against Vatican II and re-legitimize the celebration of the pre-Vatican II Tridentine Mass and other Catholic rites.
    In pre-Vatican II times, the priest (celebrant of the Mass) was considered to be a part of the congregation, and a representative of the people.
    By turning the priest around to face the congregation, the priest was no longer a representative, but an actor, diminishing his status and importance.
    It was a grave mistake by the Church to de-legitimize pre-Vatican II principles.
    Fortunately, there are Catholic organizations that subscribe to pre-Vatican II principles, one being the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX).

    • Agree: Kolya Krassotkin
  2. The original liturgy in Rome was Greek. The change to Latin was a switch to the vernacular. The main weapon used for the destruction of the West is the msm which did not exist before the 20th century. If a strong man came along I doubt very much if any great change would come about even if he had a platform (which he certainly would not be given) because the masses have been propagandised so thoroughly for decades they would think him evil incarnate.

  3. Tom Verso says:

    The Latin Mass
    Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX)
    Throws Down the Gantlet

    (The Western Civilization Phoenix pokes its head up from its ashes???)

    On July 16, 2021, Pope Francis issued a motu proprio (Latin: “on one’s own initiative”) which essentially dictated that the Latin mass was no longer to be tolerated in Catholic Dioceses.

    He wrote:
    on the one hand, [dioceses were] to provide for the good of those who are rooted in the previous form of celebration and need to return in due time to the Roman Rite [i.e. Mass] promulgated by Saints Paul VI and John Paul II

    and, on the other hand, to discontinue the erection of new personal parishes tied more to the desire and wishes of individual priests than to the real need of the ‘holy People of God.’ “

    In short, the Latin Mass was no longer to be celebrated.

    The SSPX, the foremost worldwide practitioner of the Latin Mass with 3 Bishops, 687 priests and 200+ seminarians (per Wikipedia), wasted no time responding to the Popes’ (Joe Biden-esque vax) edict.

    Just three days later (7/19/21), SSPX posted an unoffical response in an article:
    “From Summorum Pontificum to Traditionis Custodes,
    From the Reserve to the Zoo”

    This article
    “gave initial thoughts prepared by the FSSPX.News team”;
    in anticipation of
    An official statement to be released from the General House of the Society of Saint Pius X in due course.”
    (see: (

    Four days later, on July 23rd said “official statement” was published:

    “Letter from the Superior General of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X,
    in light of the publication of the motu proprio “Traditionis custodes”


    And it is a barn burner.

    My take:
    Francis is put on notice that if he presumes to stop SSPX from saying the Latin Mass,
    he will throw The Church into schism.

    Father Pagliarari in the first paragraph cuts to the chase. He writes in capital letters:


    (emphasis added)

    Well, I’d say that’s the end of the conversation.
    Francis … “the ball is in your court”

    Father Pagliarari goes on:

    “The motu proprio Traditionis custodes and the letter that accompanied it have caused a profound upheaval in the so-called traditionalist movement.

    “We can point out, quite logically, that the era of the hermeneutics of continuity, with its equivocations, illusions and impossible efforts, is radically over – swept aside with a wave of a sleeve.

    Note: Ever since the pontificate of Benedict XVI, the term “hermeneutic continuity” has been proposed as descriptive of an interpretation of the Second Vatican Council that stresses continuity between pre and post-Conciliar teachings.

    In short, the “continuity of pre and post-Consiliar teachings” has ended.
    There is only, per Francis, post-Vatican II (1965) teachings.

    Most importantly Father says:

    “These clear-cut measures do not directly affect the Society of Saint Pius X.

    Schism??? Just wondering?

    He then, in the historic Catholic intellectual tradition of continuity in the evolution of the Magisterium of the Teachings of the Catholic Church, goes into a discussion of the history of The Mass and its meaning.

    He writes
    It is necessary to step back and ask ourselves a question that is both old and new:
    Why is the Tridentine Mass still the apple of discord after fifty years?

    And he proceeds brilliantly in his Bishop’s role as THE Catholic Teacher.

    Read his discussion and compare it to E. Michal Jones’s silly chit chat about the Mass being weaponized for ethnic/political reasons.

    But, like the TV sales person always saids:

    “That’s not all you get..”

    SSPX did not end its response to Francis with Father Pagliarari’s article.

    They would not let Francis ‘off the ropes’.
    They keep punching with a series of six (to date) articles
    “Special Dossieer: ‘Traditonis Custodies’, ”

    where in they discuss the history and meaning of The Mass in great detail with references to the great teachers and commentators of the Church.

    These articles are in the above noted concept of Catholic teachings which are grounded in the historic continuity of the Magisterium.
    (see:“traditionis-custodes”-6-68482 #6 with links to 1-5)

    Again, compare these writings with E Michael Jones’ ‘silly talk’ about the Traditional Mass. In podcasts he references the Latin (i.e. Tridentine Mass) to its origins with the Council of Trent circa 1570.
    He gives the impression it was just an arbitrary capricious decision to form the Mass as such at that time.
    So what’s the problem with changing the Mass per post Vatican II?

    However, the SSPX writer of “Special Dossier: “Traditionis Custodes” (4)” mgr Robert Mutsaerts, notes the history leading up to the Tridentian Mass.

    He writes;
    The Church has never abolished liturgies.
    Not even the Council of Trent.
    Francis has completely broken with this tradition.

    “The Council of Trent wanted to restore the liturgies, eliminate inaccuracies, and check for orthodoxy. Trent was not concerned with rewriting the liturgy, nor with making new additions, new eucharistic prayers, a new lectionary, or a new calendar.”

    “They simply wanted to ensure uninterrupted organic continuity.
    The 1517 Missal harkens back to the 1474 Missal and so on back to the fourth century.
    There was continuity from the fourth century onwards.
    After the fifteenth century, there were four more centuries of continuity.”

    In short, Francis has done what no Pope or Church Council has done in the 2000 year history of the Church.

    Frances makes changes, in the words of Father Pagliarari, “with the wave of a sleeve“.

    More generally, to my mind, the SSPX response may be seen in the historic context of the history of Western Civilization.

    The history and culture of the European people is being shredded and trashed for (at least) 100 years. A quenticental example of that trashing is the
    ‘bitch-slappping of the Catholic Church’ by the Jews.

    While, as noted above, E. Michal Jones’ discussion of The Mass is ‘silly’.
    Nevertheless, he is brilliant in his historic analysis of the profoundly negative affect that Jews have on The Church.

    To my mind, the Jews are on the cusp of achieving what they failed to do at Calvary.

    I wonder … will the Civilization that was founded in His name, ‘Christendom’, breathe its last breath with the demise of His Church at the hands the same avowed enemies who came for him at Gethsemane?

    Until, this SSPX response to Francis’ motu proprio’, I was convinced I was witnessing the end of my Civilization.

    I am a passionate student of Arnold J. Toynbee.
    I have been reading his 12 volume opus on the rise and fall of civilizations (The Study of History) for near forty years.
    Accordingly, I am painfully aware that civilization do come to an end.

    Western Civilization has been torched!
    Its ashes are seen everywhere.
    Is it at the end?

    SSPX gives pause.

    I wonder if its response is the head of a Civilizational Phoenix poking its head up from the ashes; leading to the a Renaissance of the European people and their magnificent unparalleled history and culture.

    If SSPX can say, in the words of Popeye

    ” I’ve stands all I can stands and I can’t stands no more’,

    Will other Western institutions follow and bring forth the whole Phoenix?

    What American institution will stand agains Joe Biden’s “wave of a sleeve” mass vaccination edict ?

    • Thanks: Kolya Krassotkin
  4. LK LK says:

    The key issue with the NO v TLM debate in the Catholic Church is (based on my layman’s reading of issue) that the mass was altered in such a way as to eliminate aspects of the mass offensive to PROTESTANTS, not Jews. The Good Friday reading offends Jews, and certainly Jewish lobbying was involved in its elimination, but the Catholic mass per se, 365 days a year, offends Protestants, who take it as a form of idolatry and sacrilege.

    Traditionalists will argue that the NO missal removed elements that explicitly underline Catholic doctrines regarding the sacramental priesthood and the mass as a propitiatory sacrifice, and elements that have become accepted since the 1970s like communion on the hand or woman eucharistic ministers and altar girls take this further. The new mass is keeps enough Catholic stuff that it is OK to orthodox Catholics but eliminates enough that Protestants are fine with it too. So while Catholic dogma about the mass, priesthood, real presence, and whatnot has not changed, how this dogma is EXPRESSED in the mass has changed in a serious way, the outside looks Calvinist but the esoteric interior is Catholic. This is a big problem-it gives Protestants and dissenting progressive Catholics alike the (false) idea that the Church has changed its theology and embraced certain Protestant ideas. This problem exacerbated by the Church’s embrace of ecumenism–the impression is that no one needs to convert because the RCC is just another mainline Protestant sect, and all religions are OK (the obverse of ecumenism, Feenyism, the belief that only baptized Catholics can be saved, is heretical and condemned by even the SSPX, but it still pops up in rad-trad circles).

    Some liturgical reform was probably called for in the 1960s, but the reforms we actually got caused more harm than good, and the church hierarchy should simply “take the L” and reevaluate things. This seemed to be what Benedict was doing. With Francis, the Vatican II generate of churchman are instead digging in their heels.

    EMJ blows past all of this to rave about how both sides are really controlled by Jews and that he isn’t controlled by Jews and that Jews are the problem and the solution to the church’s problems is for EWTN to hire EMJ to talk about how bad Jews are on cable TV.

    In EMJ’s defense, he is correct to say that the TLM is not a magic key to solve all of the church’s many problems. A popular mainstream Catholic podcast recently had a episode called “Top 10 things about the Latin Mass” or something like that. One reason given was that the homilies were better and more orthodox. Clearly, the 1962 missal itself is not causing these priests to be better public speakers or more committed to orthodox positions on doctrine, such that they could not conceivably give identical homilies at a NO mass.

    • Replies: @Anon
  5. You have Life?  Good.  Then Life has you as well  All of you! Every organ, every drop of blood and, of course, your brain: your mind. But I have free will!, you say. Of course you do. Sort of.Now

    Life is normally quite placid. Even though Life lives on by consuming itself; the feasting is benign, as it is with all Life’s wards; with one notable exception. You.  And the rest of the human race. We are Life consuming gluttons extraordinaire. Think Gettysburg, Dachau, Hiroshima and …factory farming: ad nauseam.

    This is not new, of course. Our behavior is old news. Life has cut slack to humans because we have a uniqueness that has warranted observation over time. Time may have just run out. Humans now have the ability to destroy the biosphere. Our pernicious conduct may have convinced Life that without its prompt.interjection; it is inevitable.

    Enter Mr.Covid 19. Force Majeure of modern plagues. Sponsor of the blame game to end all blame games. Seven billion people have an opinion…and an asshole. The ones who have a microphone or a computer demonstrate both, daily. Think Life has a hand in all this? Maybe the plague is a worldwide distraction to give the Biosphere a little breathing room to heal from ongoing human assault? Hmmm.

    Millions are dead. Millions are becoming infected every day. The virus twists and turns and presents a new face constantly. We rush to keep up but seemingly always lag behind. How so? Is it out of our hands?Note: I appear to have become hostage to this topic. Could I be prompted by the Life force to do it’s bidding? Quien Sabe? 

  6. R2b says:

    Was Christ’s labor on the cross sufficient?
    Let mass then be a celebration of that, and an expression of gratitude.
    But surely the prayer for the conversion of the Jews must be there!
    What is wrong with that?
    But wait a minute, why choose and point out just the super-heathen Jews!?
    Isn’t that’s just the problem?
    Why not just pray for all, who has not recieved Jesus Christ?
    As far as I know, BXVI, refered to the Jews as our ”Elder Brothers”.
    I think he was wrong!
    You must discern between S:t John and Maimonides!

  7. Caltrop says:

    Who wears the Crown? –

    When people say that the Vatican controls everything just remember that the Vaticans Pope is no longer coronated with a Crown. The void has been filled by Rothschid’s Crown City of London.

    It apparent to me that Romes papal authority over the world, symbolised by the Popes 3 tiered crown has moved its statutory authority from Vatican Hill to Capitoline Hill, Washington, D.C.

    “In 1968 after touring the United States, the crown was presented by Archbishop Luigi Raimondi, apostolic delegate to the United States, to Msgr. William McDonough, the shrine’s director.”

    Pope Paul VI and the Abandonment of the Tiara
    The Coronation of Pope Paul VI


    Pope Paul VI was the last pope to use a tiara at his coronation. However; after the ceremony, he donated it and introduced the use of a simple miter representing the fish god Dagon. He gave the tiara to the poor people of the world, with an official statement saying:

    The Roman Catholic Church has always shown its charity toward the poor. Pope Paul VI has wanted to give new proof of this charity [after hearing] the many and grave words expressed in the council on the misery and hunger of these days.

    He then removed the tiara from his head, placing it on the altar as a picture of the “renunciation of human glory and power” and as “the new spirit of the Church purified.”

    The tiara went on tour to raise funds for the poor, before coming to the Basilica, where it is displayed today.

    The tradition of wearing a miter was adopted by subsequent popes, and the use of the tiara was discontinued. The coronation ceremony was also renamed and is now known as the solemn inauguration of Petrine Ministry.

    ………..Vicar of Christ (Vicarius Christi) and Antichrist have exactly the same meaning. The Pope substitutes himself in place of God on earth, and that is *exactly* the meaning of Antichrist.
    The pope’s hat may refer to: Papal tiara, a jewelled three-tiered crown used at papal coronations from 1305 through 1963. Mitre, a high liturgical headdress made …
    The Crown of Ba’al, also known as the Papal Tiara and Triregnum is a three-tiered jewelled papal crown and symbol of claimed papal supremecy since the 16th …
    For more than a thousand years, the Papal Tiara was as symbol of the authority of the Papacy. But, when Pope Paul VI left his Tiara on the Altar of Saint Peter’s during the closing of The Second Vatican Council, no Pope has worn the Three-Tiered Crown. However, subsequent Popes have received Tiaras, but have not worn them publicly (or likely at all.)

    On 16 May, during an audience with Trajko Veljanoski, The Speaker of The Assembly of The Republic of Macedonia, The Holy Father was presented with a beautifully ornate Tiara, handmade by the Nuns of Rajcica Monastery, with Pearls from Ohrid Lake. Up until this point, Pope Francis had not received a Tiara.

    So the void created by the Vatican was filled by its near mirror image, the pagan authories in the Israeli controlled United States and Britain.

    Jews and Catholics in partnership –

    The Talmud created at the Babylon Yahsiva (Academy) by BalKhan (Baal Priest) Baba Rabban is properly called the “Babylonian Talmud” and was the only version of Talmud created until the 16th Century when the Venetians through the Jesuits created a hybrid document integrating the Mithraic-Iudaic laws of the Septuaginta to create the “Jerusalem Talmud”.

    Jewish Prime Minister of England, Benjamin Disraeli said – “the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.” ……. “You never observe a great intellectual movement in Europe in which the Jews do not greatly participate. The first Jesuits were Jews;” …… (pp. 249-252)

    What does the word Vatican mean?

    The word ‘Vatican’ literally means “Divining Serpent,” and is derived from Vatis = Diviner and Can = Serpent. The Vatican City and St. Peter’s Basilica were built on the ancient pagan site called in Latin vaticanus mons or vaticanus collis, which means hill or mountain of prophecy. …..

    Vaticans’ schisms caused by Romes siding with the Jewish narrative –

    Quis Custodiet Traditionis Custodes?
    Who watches over the guardians of tradition?
    E. Michael Jones • September 8, 2021 • 12,200 Words • 3 Comments • Reply

    Washington D.C. ( District of Columbia )

    “Columbia” is a name for “Goddess of Creation, War, and Destruction” better known as the goddess of death and pain. She is derived from the imagery of Semiramis, wife of Nimrod, and Queen of Babylon.

    The statue on top of the Capitol building called the Statue of Freedom is actually Persephone, meaning “She who Destroys the Light”. She is the queen of the underworld. She is crowned with pentacles (pentagrams–stars with five points). When someone stands on something, it is usually an indication of ownership. Therefore, she owns the facility she stands upon. Although the dome on top of the Capitol building was not finished until 1868, the final installation of this statue on top of the dome took place on December 2, 1863. The original Capitol building, without the dome, was completed in 1826.

    Columbia and Persephone are seen as other statues around Washington D.C. area.

    “……….When it came time to pick a name for the new capital that was being moved from Charleston to its present site, Senator John Lewis Gervais, whom the present day street is named after, in 1786 said, “in this town we should find refuge under the wings of COLUMBIA.” It is from this speech that people rallied to name it Columbia, beating out the name Washington in an 11-7 vote in the state senate.

    It is clear from Gerais’ quote that Columbia, South Carolina was named for the goddess Columbia and not Christopher Columbus.

    Anti-Christ –

    The statue on top of the Capitol building called the Statue of Freedom is actually Persephone, meaning “She who Destroys the Light”. She is the queen of the underworld.

    John 8:12 (NKJV) 12 Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”

    And the United States looks much like ancient Rome.

    Washington’s Capitol Hill –

    “…….Capitoline Hill: The Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus was located on the Capitoline Hill in Rome.

    When designing Washington, D.C., George Washington and others very carefully chose symbols to convey their ideas. It was with this mindset that they desired to have America’s lawmakers to meet on a hill they chose to call Capitol Hill in honour of Jupiter’s Capitoline Hill. As described by Pamela Scott:

    “The iconography of the panels decorating the south (which was to contain the House of Representatives) is derived from the most powerful ancient god, Jupiter, and the strongest ancient hero, Hercules. In the central panel, a single standing figure (representing either collective American patriots or Washington) takes an oath before the seated Jupiter … king of the gods in Roman mythology, … Oaths in ancient Rome were taken at the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, located on the Capitoline hill. (emphasis added) [16]

    “…………..But even before the founding of Washington, D.C. – and even before the founding of the United States – there were already some links between the ancient city of Rome and this remote bit of farmland destined to become our nation’s capital.

    The area that L’Enfant called Jenkins Hill was actually known as “New Troy,” dating all the way back to the original Maryland land grant in 1663. In Roman mythology, the ancient city of Troy was a precursor to Rome.

    And the area around New Troy included a 400-acre farm that its owner had actually named Rome. He even renamed the modest Goose Creek, which flowed from the Potomac to the base of what would become Capitol Hill, the mighty Tiber Creek, after Rome’s Tiber River.

    And his name – Francis Pope.
    So there you go – even before its founding, Washington had a Rome, the Tiber, and a Pope.

    Ciao, my work is done for the day.

    The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

    Protocol No.7


    2. WE HAVE LONG PAST TAKEN CARE TO DISCREDIT THE PRIESTHOOD OF “GOYIM,” and thereby to ruin their mission on earth which in these days might still be a great hindrance to us. Day by day its influence on the peoples of the world is falling lower. FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE HAS BEEN DECLARED EVERYWHERE, SO THAT NOW ONLY YEARS DIVIDE US FROM THE MOMENT OF THE COMPLETE WRECKING OF THAT CHRISTIAN RELIGION: as to other religions we shall have still less difficulty in dealing with them, but it would be premature to speak of this now. We shall act clericalism and clericals into such narrow frames as to make their influence move in retrogressive proportion to its former progress.

    3. When the time comes finally to destroy the papal court the finger of an invisible hand will point the nations towards this court. When, however, the nations fling themselves upon it, we shall come forward in the guise of its defenders as if to save excessive bloodshed. By this diversion we shall penetrate to its very bowels and be sure we shall never come out again until we have gnawed through the entire strength of this place.


    5. But, IN THE MEANTIME, while we are re-educating youth in new traditional religions and afterwards in ours, WE SHALL NOT OVERTLY LAY A FINGER ON EXISTING CHURCHES, BUT WE SHALL FIGHT AGAINST THEM BY CRITICISM CALCULATED TO PRODUCE SCHISM ….

  8. Anon[369] • Disclaimer says:
    @LK LK

    The TLM does seem to be an affectation by the younger trads and convert trads, after all, they didn’t grow up with it and only encountered it through YouTube, podcasts, or recreation of it from trad priests who themselves had to watch YouTube videos to see how it was done. If you’ve ever encountered these trad types it’s apparent that they set themselves apart and think their approach is somehow better. As EMJ says, this is disunity and schism and stems from lack of charity. But I also think it undermines the role of the Church and its primary purpose, that is, not to dust off the wings of angels but provide channels of forgiveness to those who need it most. Real, tangible forgiveness, mercy, and hope through sacraments instituted by Christ and which operate automatically (or ex opere operato).

    Venerable Fulton Sheen in his catechism audio lectures gives an example of such a person:

    “Now we go into the box and begin the confession. Immediately we kneel down, bless ourselves, and say, ‘Bless me, Father, for I have sinned.’ Then we state how long it has been since our last confession in a definite period of time, such as weeks, months, or years. Suppose we have someone who has not been to confession in fifty years. Suppose he’s eighty years old. What kind of a confession can he make? He cannot remember all of the number of sins and the like. His confession might be something like this:

    ‘Father, it has been fifty years since I last went to confession. During twenty years of my life I never went to Mass. I never frequented the sacraments. I never made my Easter duty. I did not fast. Many times a day I took the name of God falsely, I used it falsely. I also took false oaths in court about five times. I was disobedient in a very serious way to civil authorities, twice. I assisted an abortion, twice. I murdered, once. I was an alcoholic for ten years. I had immodest thoughts, certainly every day for about thirty years, immodest actions with myself many times for about ten years. While living with my first wife, I was guilty of adultery many times over a period of three years. While my first wife was living I married again, so I lived in adultery for about five years. Now she is dead. During this time, in business, I cut corners; I underpaid my employees; I thought only about making money. I never gave to any charities, except when I was forced to out of public shame. I particularly regret, once, refusing to send one hundred dollars to the Holy Father for missions of the world when I had plenty of money. I gave myself over to an excessive spirit of amusement and parties. I can never recall once in my life ever having helped someone in distress. I never gave up my evenings once to help the Church. I completely neglected my wife as regards esteem and affection. I never sent my children to a religious school. I left them to do as they pleased and I became angry with them for their impiety and now I am suffering. For these and all sins of my past life, those which I do not remember, but as God sees them, I ask pardon of God and you, Father.’

    This is a confession of a man away from the sacrament fifty years.”

    — from Your Life Is Worth Living: 50 Lessons to Deepen Your Faith by Fulton J. Sheen

    Likewise, the great Oxford Dominican theologian, Fr. Herbert McCabe, O.P., sums up the fundamental role of the Church. As recounted by his longtime friend Sir Anthony Kenny (Oxford philosopher and former master of Balliol):

    “If you went to a sermon by Herbert, you knew you were in no danger of falling asleep: his style as a preacher was at the furthest possible remove from the bland truisms one hears so often from the pulpit. One of his favourite devices was to take some ecclesiastical commonplace – such as ‘the Church welcomes sinners’ – and spell out what it meant, freed of cant: ‘People who are really welcome to the Catholic Church are the murderers, rapists, torturers, sadistic child molesters, and even those who evict old people from their homes.’ It was for such people, he said from the pulpit, that the Church existed: but he went on to admit, with a certain show of reluctance, that many of his congregation, perhaps even a majority, did not come into any of these categories.”

    Anthony Kenny, Brief Encounters

    Without casting aspersions I think we intuitively recognize that the TLM Catholic Church envisioned by the trads would be totally alien and unwelcoming to the ‘worst of the worst’ sinners who need it the most. Like me, for starters.

    • Replies: @Anon
  9. Anon[134] • Disclaimer says:

    If you’ve ever encountered these trad types it’s apparent that they set themselves apart and think their approach is somehow better. As EMJ says, this is disunity and schism and stems from lack of charity.

    Well, it is a bit ironic to assume the worst about other peoples’ motive and point of view, ascribe these assumed motives to an entire class, and then to accuse them of a lack of charity. 🙂

    • Thanks: Kolya Krassotkin
  10. Anon[369] • Disclaimer says:

    Well, it is a bit ironic to assume the worst about other peoples’ motive and point of view, ascribe these assumed motives to an entire class, and then to accuse them of a lack of charity.

    🤔 Lol, I guess I should’ve tried to phrase that better. 😉

  11. Dr. Jones is the Ron Jaworski of commentators. Jaworski, the quarterback of the Philadelphia Eagles from the late 1970s into the 1980s, would often make several good plays in a row, but tended to follow them with others that reflected inexplicably bad decision-making. Jones’ analysis is composed of lots of good points, mixed with howlers.

    Jones believes offering a choice between the Tridentine and Novus Ordo variants of the Roman Rite leads to crippling disunity. How, then, does he explain the Church’s longstanding practice of maintaining entirely different rites within one Catholic Church? Jones also apparently overlooks the liceity of considering the possibility that prudential, disciplinary decisions of a council could be less than ideal.

    Jones further seems to assert that the Traditional Mass movement is composed of Catholics who are unwilling to criticize Jews. This is about as accurate a statement as saying that the movement is composed of Catholics who are unwilling to criticize reliance on nuclear energy. Simply put, criticism of the Jews is neither a focus, nor a taboo, among traditionalist Catholics. Dr. Jones has worked hard on his analysis of the Jewish role in history; it seems that when he finds someone who isn’t similarly energetic about the same topic, he thinks the person is actively suppressing discussion of the issue.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply -

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All E. Michael Jones Comments via RSS