Joseph Shaw, Chairman of the Latin Mass Society, doubles-down on his defense! of the Talmud.

https://x.com/americanreform_/status/1915432389515301091?s=46

Q. Is miscegenation wrong?

A. In itself (per se), it is not wrong. It is neither forbidden by Divine or Natural Law. That said, by circumstance (per accidens), it can be. In a healthy society, it will be very uncommon, though some will choose to marry outside their race, exceptionally, and they are certainly not incapable of having happy marriages.

Regardless, as a general practice—for reasons adduced below—it ought to be discouraged and stigmatized, in which the State can play a role.

🧵 Thread on X about this issue:
https://x.com/americanreform_/status/1865045078546280637?s=46

The post is live! 🔔

New release for The Journal of American Reform, ennoscriptd “The Dispersion of Israel in the Modern World” by Fr. Raffaele Ballerini, S.J.

“The Jew always continues to be immutably Jewish in every place. His nationality is not in the soil where he was born, it is not in the language he speaks; it is in the seed, in the lineage and in that mixture of Bible, Talmud and Kabbalah, which he calls his history and his religion [...] Everywhere he is a stranger to all, except those with whom he shares his origin and curse. Outside of his own interest, he has no other political aim, wherever he lives.”

Use the link (here) to read the entire article.

If you have not already, consider Subscribing to receive new posts directly to your inbox or app.

In 1933, Bishop Johannes Maria Gföllner, after observing that “many godless Jews exert an excessively harmful influence on almost all areas of modern cultural life”, said that “breaking this harmful influence of Judaism” is a “strict duty of conscience of every convinced Christian”.

Following that challenge, the Bishop of Linz hoped that for the “Aryan and Christian sides, these dangers and harms caused by the Jewish spirit would be more appreciated and more sustainably combatted”.

Q. Is the example of Pope Honorius I a historical precedent for the present crisis in the Church?

A.

I. Pope Honorius I did not universally impose error on the Church, thus compromising Her indefectability, meaning there can be no comparison to the present crisis in the Church. In short, the historical analog fails.

II. Honorius was only condemned in a very particular sense: “From this, I conclude that Honorius could have been condemned as a heretic by these three councils, and that he in fact was, not for having taught error, but solely for not having exerted the necessary vigor in his duties as Head of the Church, for not having vigorously used his authority to repress heresy, for having prescribed silence about the manner of expressing a truth, and having thus contributed to the diffusion of error.

This is the same conclusion which was reached by almost everyone who dealt with this question during the Vatican Council. Dom Guéranger, Abbot of the Solesmes Benedictines, said on the matter, ‘The real Sixth Council, the one to which the Roman Pontiff gave the necessary and canonical form, the one which requires the respect of the faithful, condemned Honorius only as an unfaithful guardian of the deposit of the faith, but not as having himself been an adherent of heresy. Justice and truth forbid us from going beyond that.’” - Fr. Louis-Nazaire Bégin, The Primacy and Infallibility of the Soverign Pontiffs: The Case of Pope Honorius I, 1873
https://x.com/americanreform_/status/1916841814700535994?s=46

Pope Pius IX and Pope Benedict XV vs. Bp. Athanasius Schneider
 
“For this mother and teacher of all the churches has always preserved entire and unharmed the faith entrusted to it by Christ the Lord. Furthermore, it has taught it to the faithful, showing all men truth and the path of salvation. Since all priesthood originates in this church, the entire substance of the Christian religion resides there also.” (Qui Pluribus, no. 10-11)
 
“For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor […] for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: ‘I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.’ This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine.” (Pastor Aeternus, no. 6)
 
“May through a new Pope, burning with the zeal for the glory of Christ and the salvation of souls, the Lord come to the assistance of the Apostolic See, which in our day is spiritually laying in chains, resembling to the material chains in which the Apostle Peter were put at the beginning of the life of the Church, freeing the Apostolic See from the chains of the alignment with the materialistic, morally depraved and anti-Christian globalist agenda of this world.” (Appeal for a Worldwide Crusade of Prayers for the Upcoming Conclave, para. 3)

“Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: ‘This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved’(Athanasian Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism…” (Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, no. 24)

“May all true sons and daughters of the Church import the grace of the election of a new Pope, who will be fully Catholic, fully Apostolic and fully Roman.” (Appeal for a Worldwide Crusade of Prayers for the Upcoming Conclave, para. 5)


Conclusion
Pious-sounding, unapproved prayers are no substitute for Orthodoxy.

Despite any potential good-will, Schneider is undermining the very foundations of the Roman Papacy with his heterodox prayers. A sure sign you are not accurately diagnosing the crisis in the Church correctly—to say nothing of explaining it—is running afoul of basic, Catholic doctrine.


Source for the [heterodox] prayers, published by 1Peter5:
https://onepeterfive.com/appeal-for-a-worldwide-crusade-of-prayers-for-the-upcoming-conclave/

All of the moral horror and opprobrium directed towards the National Socialist program, almost always misguided and devoid of any serious, Catholic analysis, ought to be leveled with an even greater intensity—orders of magnitude more—at the program of Donald Trump and the Republican Party. That is, if people were consistent in their moral analyses.

German National Socialism got many important things correct, namely its repudiation of individualism, liberal capitalism and, to a good extent, an appreciation of a pre-1789 (the religion of human rights, secularism and enlightenment principles) political order. Recent history has vindicated their intransigence, opposition to Jewish power and commitment to maintaining national and racial identities.

That said, any serious critiques, which are warranted, must begin with a critical distinction between Christian and unchristian strains within the movement. To present a blanket condemnation of National Socialism, making no such distinction or appreciation of the many things it got right, is to betray any pretense of seriousness.

X 🔗

My main purpose of the above post was to draw attention to the considerable merits of the National Socialist program and to, frankly, ridicule the way “Nazi” is popularly used as a pejorative and used dismissively—oftentimes dishonestly. They, the Germans, got much more right than most people are comfortable admitting, self-styled traditional Catholics (certainly) being no exception. Additionally, with the benefit of hindsight, many of the problems we face today are the direct result of demonizing, in a histrionic and irrational way, “Nazism” and those who are “Nazis”. Right or wrong, denoscriptively, that is the situation in the world’s most powerful country, America.

The principles of true Catholic political philosophy transcend any one regime or point in time, they are independent of circumstances. As a historical-political system, National Socialism should receive no preferential treatment, nor contempt, and be weighed on its merits. The authority of the Church, particularly in MBS, should be the principal guide, coupled with good history and Catholics on the ground in the Third Reich. We should outline the bad, careful to avoid exaggeration, and we should identify the good, equally careful not to exaggerate. This is decidedly not what happens today, or has ever happened. The elephant in the room preventing this honest discussion is Jewry. The same power structure that the world was so keen on allying with, against the Germans and the other Axis Powers. The Jews have ascended since WW2, dominating the Americas and Europe, and the formerly Christian nations have paid the highest price for it. We all live, whether we admit it or not, in “fear of the Jews”.

I do not think we should resurrect National Socialism or any party dedicated to it. Their time has passed and we are not Germans. We live in America and we need to apply Catholic political philosophy to our—somewhat unique—circumstances. That does not mean, however, that the National Socialist system it is to be discarded or for us to pretend it is without instructive value. However, a new solution is needed for our problems, something that challenges—most importantly in a moral and legal way—the, fundamentally, wicked principles of America: naturalism, revolutionism, liberalism and individualism. In short, what is needed is a program of supernaturalism and all that entails. Christ must reign over all of public life. America’s original sin is revolution, her founding, and until we atone for it and lovingly correct our mistaken ways, we will not be a good country, let alone a great one.

Finally, there is a real difference between Marxism and National Socialism, in that the former was condemned by the Church, without qualification, whereas the critique of the latter was—which did condemn radical elements of the movement—not categorical, but incidental, and focused on excesses. Real, dangerous excesses but not without ruling out compatibility with Catholicism. This is why the distinction between Christian and unchristian National Socialism is hugely important. Reading Abp. Hudal’s book on the question, where he argued for a bridge between Catholicism and National Socialism, has given clarity on the issue for me.

Which cardinal(s) in the upcoming conclave—if any—have not only identified religious liberty as heresy, but then have condemned it, publicly? Have any of the conservative ones?

Similarly, which cardinal(s) have said, ideally in official writings or speeches, that to manufacture religious unity with dissident cults, for example Protestants or ‘Eastern Orthodox’, in public joint-prayer services or ecumenical worship is sinful?

Are there cardinals who maintain that the Jews of today are a once-chosen people, who now labor—collectively— under a curse and, until a happy conversion to Catholicism, will remain enemies of Christ and His Mystical body?

There are many more doctrinal positions which could be brought up, but this short list should suffice to make the point.

The only standard for Catholicism is orthodoxy, which is truly and essentially different from either conservative [Catholicism] or progressive [Catholicism].

Very good read on conclave frontrunner, Cardinal Aveline.

An outline of his views on Talmudic-rabbinical Judaism from his own writing (translated from the original French), compared to Catholic doctrine. The latter which is primarily expressed in various papal bulls, writings of doctors and saints, as well as the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church.


https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/conclave-frontrunner-cardinal-avelines-views-on-judaism-subvert-church-teaching/

The Catholic King of France, Louis XVI, forbids, in law, his White subjects from contracting marriage with Blacks, Mulattos or other people of color.

The original order in French, published on April 5, 1778, can be seen below.

Q. Can we not say that we are not obliged to accept the decisions of a general Council if they were not conformed to the Word of God?

A. This is a sophism, for it is to suppose that the Church can teach what is opposed to the word of God. However, this is impossible, because God would not then keep His Word. Were His Holy Ghost to not teach, as He promised to His Church, all truth and for ever, the gates of Hell would prevail against her. God did not provide that men would guide themselves with what they judged to conform to Scripture. He sent his ministers that they might teach all nations and He ordained that he who would not believe would be condemned.

- ¿Por qué somos Católicos y no Protestantes?, cap IX, (1937), Fr. Pacifico Albero O.F.M.

Liberals, conceding that Pope Leo XIII was thoroughly anti-liberal in his magisterium, his doctrinal pronouncements, will often attempt to represent the Holy Father as sympathetic to their cause in the practical order. The history recorded below will suffice to dispel any such notion. While it is true that Leo XIII proposed the Ralliement to the French Republic, it was an entirely a strategic maneuver—though a definite failure in hindsight—and was aimed at re-installing authoritarian monarchy as the government of France.

“If you follow my advice, you will have four hundred Catholic deputies in France, and you will establish the monarchy. I am a monarchist myself.”

- Pope Leo XIII

“Authoritarian values and defensiveness against democratic ideals were part of the ideology that Leo XIII and Pius X shared. The Ralliement was not a call for Catholics to support republican democracy; instead it was an appeal for Catholics to defend the interests of the church via the tactic of constitutionality rather than monarchism. Leo’s private letter to Monseigneur de Cabrières indicated the pope's personal preference for royal government. In his public writings, in his charges against Americanism and in his encyclical against Christian Democracy, he showed that his principles were alien to democratic values. Pius X promulgated similar views.”

- Why the French Christian Democrats Were Condemned, Oscar Arnal

In 1569, Pope St. Pius V expelled the Jews from Papal States, warning Christians about their usurious practices, magic and superstition.

The holy saint and pope began with the following declaration, “The Jewish people, the only nation once chosen by the Lord, which was infused with divine utterances to be a partaker of the heavenly mysteries, as much as it excelled all others in grace and dignity, only afterwards, despised and neglected by the merit of its unbelief, deserved to be overthrown, because, when the fullness of time had come, it treacherously and ungratefully condemned its Redeemer to an unworthy and impious death.”

Good back-and-forth on illegal immigration with Ryan Grant.

Pt. I (link)

Pt. II (link)

Pt. III (link)

Ethnic Jews who have converted to Catholicism ought to refrain from speaking publicly on political matters, particularly when it comes to issues like immigration, national identity and economics. As a rule, barring some extraordinary exceptions, this should be enforced by Catholics, gently at first, then vigorously.

This can be proven in several ways, but common sense, practical experience and a working-knowledge of history are sufficient. For one, the unique racial character and disposition of the Jew is not immediately vitiated by his conversion and baptism. For two thousand years he has considered himself apart, certainly distinct from the gentiles and often above them. Assimilation in his host country, for him, means ethnic extinction and a renunciation of his special status, as chosen by God. There is a real tension in his person since he knows that, after the coming of Christ, the faithful Christian nations, no longer the Jews, are the chosen people. Yet it is hard for him to detach from his ethnic baggage, so-to-speak. It is not natural for that to happen immediately, and we ought not to be surprised when it, invariably, does not.

As Fr. Raffaele Ballerini, editor of La Civiltá Cattolica, observed in 1897, “The Jew always continues to be immutably Jewish in every place. His nationality is not in the soil where he was born, it is not in the language he speaks; it is in the seed, in the lineage and in that mixture of Bible, Talmud and Kabbalah, which he calls his history and his religion […] Everywhere he is a stranger to all, except those with whom he shares his origin and curse. Outside of his own interest, he has no other political aim, wherever he lives.”
 
In all of this, Catholics must not lose sight of the truth that we must presume sincerity on the part of the convert, whether he is an ethnic Jew or ethnic gentile. Charity and the Church demand that. However, we must not error into credulity, which is decidedly not a virtue. Presumption must give way to facts, to observable objective intentions, even if they are for ill—no, especially if they are for ill. The common good is at stake. Catholicism informs political thinking—that is, if the convert is sincere—but it takes time, particularly for the true outsider, the ethnic Jew.

Finally, a warning of St. Thomas, while not directly related to this issue of Jewish converts involving themselves in domestic politics, ought not to go unheeded. This principle, surely, can apply here, “[I]f foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down in its midst, many dangers would occur, since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people.” (ST I-II, q. 105, a.3)

A new Substack post will be released this week, likely Friday evening, critiquing the theory of separation of powers, fundamental to the American political system. The guide will be Msgr. Louis Taparelli, S.J., a counterrevolutionary philosopher who vigorously helped to revive Thomism in the Catholic Church.

In short, Montesquieu has it all wrong. Stay tuned.

If you have not already, subscribe to The Journal of American Reform

Q. In your view, how do you think we are going to get a true pope? If he’s based, will that be good enough?


A. It’s a good question and certainly worth answering.

For traditional Catholics that hold to The Cassiasiacum Thesis of Fr. Guérard des Lauriers (O.P.), like myself, to explain the crisis in Faith and Authority in the Church since Vatican II, the answer is yes, if the meaning of ‘based’ in the question is the abrogation of the Council and the subsequent reforms. Concretely, this continuation of the revolution of Vatican II was the impediment to Francis having received the form of the papacy, papal power. If this abrogation were to occur, it would be the objective criteria by which this conclave could produce a true pope. In human terms, this is extraordinarily unlikely, though, with God, all things are possible.

What needs to happen, what we are praying for, is a restoration of authority in the Roman See and for the man designated to be pope to intend, in an objective and habitual way, the good end of the Church—namely the Glory of God thorough the salvation of souls. Outside of that, the answer is no, for reasons which can be explained. The violent privation of authority in the Catholic Church needs to end, yet God has permitted this for His greater glory—however mysteriously it may seem.

In theological terms, the problem with Paul VI and his lawful successors, the ‘conciliar popes’, who have occupied the Roman See for the past ~60 years is their universal imposition of the heresies of Vatican II (religious liberty, ecumenism, salvation by means of non-Catholic sects, partial communion, Jews are no longer cursed, and other errors, too), which has truly been confirmed by the official doctrinal interpretation of the conciliar hierarchy. Those are the evident facts. This official doctrinal interpretation, rather than any private interpretation of the conciliar doctrines, however favorable (though, still not orthodox), is ultimately what matters. To the legislator, alone, belongs the right to interpret, clarify and implement laws, and this rule is no different when analyzing magisterial texts. The mind of the legislator, his objective intentions, distinct from the subjective ones, are what matter.

The indefectability of the Catholic Church means these errors of Vatican II cannot be ascribed to the Teaching Authority, otherwise the Gates of Hell would—blasphemously—prevail. So, faced with the possibility of the [apparent] Roman Pontiff—who has the assistance of the Holy Ghost and the Divine Promises in his capacity as pope—promulgating error and defection in official teaching, one must conclude he is not, in fact, the pope. In our present crisis, Paul VI and his lawful successors must lack the authority of Christ, despite any outward appearances. This is because they have objectively and habitually failed in situations whereby they should be preserved from teaching harmful error. In this case, promulgating heresy.

If this is the first time you have heard of The Thesis of Cassiasiacum (often called sedeprivationism), I would encourage you to study the position, by those who explain it best, not me. I will include links below to that end. Doubtless, you may initially disagree with the conclusion but it must be studied and properly understood if you want to critique it.

The mind who developed this theological position—as alluded to at the beginning of this post—was Fr. Guérard des Lauriers, O.P.. Prior to Vatican II he was a highly-esteemed Dominican theologian, one time confessor to Pius XII and later the author of the critique of the Mass of Paul VI, colloquially known as “The Ottaviani Intervention”. To date, his scholastic thesis of the present Crisis has never been refuted.

‘The New Doctrine of Vatican II’ can be found here: thethesis.us/chapter-ii/

‘The General Overview’ of the position can be found here: thethesis.us

Finally, a very good theological and philosophical interview with GdL can be read here: https://www.sodalitiumpianum.com/interview-bishop-guerard/

On a recent program of ‘What Catholics Believe’, a long-running and wonderful show hosted by Fr. William Jenkins (SSPV), a post I had written about the present conclave was brought up, read and further developed. See for yourself.

I never would have expected for my commentary to make it on his show. Gratifying, to say the least and also humorous since he asks, curiously, “Who is this ‘American Reform’ account?”

Thank you to one of my followers for bringing this clip to my attention. The original stream can be found here (29:38): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpJnfG8dZkU