Amazing! All “Popes” since Vatican II are Saints!

The Immense “Holiness” of the Novus Ordo “Popes”

You would think that a minimum sense of embarrassment would keep the Modernist infiltrators into the Catholic Church from being too blunt about the farce they have been pulling off since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958, but that’s just not the case anymore. At this point, they’re not even trying to hide the patent ridiculousness of their schemes.

The latest case in point is Francis’ declaration that the Modernist Bishop Albino Luciani (1912-1978), better known by his stage name “Pope John Paul I” (reigned Aug. 26 – Sep. 28, 1978), practiced the Christian virtues to a heroic degree. This decision, which the Vatican announced on Nov. 9, 2017 in its daily press bulletin, grants to John Paul I the title “Venerable”. The next step, called beatification, is the last one before canonization, which is the declaration of sainthood, as the Catholic Encyclopedia explains.

Here are some news stories regarding Francis’ decision to recognize heroic virtue in Bp. Luciani:

Let’s briefly review some of that Lucianian “heroic virtue”: John Paul I abolished the solemn papal coronation ceremony, replacing it instead with a mere “installation”. John Paul I stopped using the gestatorial chair and only resumed its use after people complained they could no longer see their “Pope”. John Paul I was the first in 2,000 years of Christendom to use a curious “papal” double name because he couldn’t decide which of his two Modernist predecessors — John XXIII or Paul VI — he admired more. Although the man nicknamed “the Smiling Pope” reigned for a mere 33 days, this was enough time for him to declare that God is our Mother more than our Father, to call the Protestant then-U.S. President Jimmy Carter a “fervent Christian”, and to praise Italian Satanist Giosuè Carducci during a Sunday Angelus address. Details and more information about Albino Luciani can be found on our John Paul I topical page here.

All of this isn’t even the main focus of this post, however. Rather, the point of this post is to expose the manifest charade that is being pulled off with the obsession to “canonize” every Novus Ordo “Pope”. If we look at the scorecard of what the Vatican wants you to believe about the very men who have brought about the near-total collapse of Catholicism throughout the entire world in the last 60 years, this is where we’re at:

The only reason why Benedict XVI (2005-2013) has not yet had his canonization proceedings opened is the fact that he is still alive, and not even the Novus Ordo Sect is going to declare to be saints people who are still alive — at least not yet. And of course we all know that as soon as Francis is called to judgment, half the globe will demand his instant canonization.

What is the clear message here? It’s simple, and everybody gets it: Every Vatican II “Pope” is a Saint! It’s just amazing, but ever since that phenomenal council, there simply hasn’t been a bad apple in their ranks yet!

Sure, they also on occasion promote a little bit the causes of Pope Pius IX (“beatified” by John Paul II in 2000) and of Pope Pius XII (declared “venerable” by Benedict XVI in 2009), but that’s just so they can hide behind two pre-conciliar Popes in case someone accuses them of just trying to canonize Vatican II.

The idea that in the last 150 years, seven out of ten Popes have been saints, is patently ridiculous. This becomes clear when you contrast it with pre-conciliar Church history. Consider that out of all the Popes who reigned between 1566 and 1958, only two ended up being canonized (St. Pius V by Clement XI in 1712 and St. Pius X by Pius XII in 1954) — and only one Pope during that time period was beatified (Bl. Innocent XI by Pius XII in 1956). Aside from the many martyrs during the first few centuries of Church history, Pope-Saints are quite rare, perhaps because practicing heroic virtue in the exercise of this most exalted office is extraordinarily difficult.

And now we are supposed to believe that since the glorious “New Springtime” of Vatican II — the stark effects of which we have chronicled and exposed throughout this web site –, one Pope after another has been a saint? Just how stupid do these Novus Ordo Modernists think people are?

This whole thing is not only a sham. Declaring all of your leaders to be extraordinarily holy is also one of the hallmarks of a cult. This label fits the Vatican II Sect quite well, of course, it’s just that one would think they’re not so foolish as to make the fraud so obvious. But at this point, there is probably no more need to disguise it — there are simply not enough people who care, and it is much easier to deceive the masses than to convince them that they’ve been deceived.

For those who would like to review what a real Pope-Saint is like and contrast it with the pseudo-sanctity of John XXIII and John Paul II, for example, the virtues and holiness practiced by Saint Pius X provide a refreshing reality check:

When you consider the real sanctity of St. Pius X and how it relates (not only, of course) to his adherence to and guarding of the true Catholic doctrine, you realize very quickly why “Pope” Francis completely ignored the 100th anniversary of Pius X’s death in 2014, despite professing to have a “strong devotion” to him.

In any case, ladies and gentlemen, the writing is on the wall: The quickest and surest way to be declared a saint in the Vatican II Sect is to be elected its “Pope”!

Image source: Wikimedia Commons (Dnalor 01)
License: CC BY-SA 3.0

Share this content now:

59 Responses to “The Immense “Holiness” of the Novus Ordo “Popes””

  1. Sonia

    “At this point, they’re not even trying to hide the patent ridiculousness of their schemes.” Because, “it is much easier to deceive the masses than to convince them that they’ve been deceived.”

    Well, the rumours were that JPI was murdered. If so, one can see why. The enemy would not have wanted folks to wake up so soon to the fact of the little antichrist factory that is VII.

    • corvinus ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

      I personally suspect that JP1 was some sort of bizarre Masonic human sacrifice for goodness knows what purpose. It would certainly help explain his being bumped off 33 days into his “reign”.

      • Sonia

        Well, the 33 certainly has a freemasonic ‘message’ – 33 degrees, mocking the life of Christ. Miserable filth of their stale satanic antichrist cult. I read somewhere that St Augustine wrote that those in Heaven will, somehow, at some point, be able to look down and view those in hell and will delight at the sight. At the time I thought, eeewww, surely not. But when you clock up the fetid hatred for souls that blokes like these antichrist cults have…who can say. May it be that no soul visiting here, ends up on the wrong side of that view.

      • BurningEagle

        Corvinus: I am new to social media, and somewhat ignorant of the conventions. What does the check mark and the word “deplorable” mean after your moniker? I know what the word means, but I do not know why it is part of the moniker.

        • corvinus ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

          It refers to the 2016 U.S. election when Hillary Clinton called Trump supporters a “basket of deplorables”.

  2. João Crisóstomo

    Damn and scandalous section! It blasphemes the saints of God in the light of noon and fools do not see, they do not tear their robes, they do not proclaim the truth by denouncing the wolves! May the Lord have mercy on these souls, for they do not have it!

  3. BurningEagle

    One would think that with so many Saints, Blesseds, and Venerables in a row in the papacy, the Church would be more healthy, and certainly more unified, more holy, more universal, and more apostolic. The faith should be stronger in the laity, as well as the clergy.
    But the opposite has occurred. The statistics indicate an ecclesiological neutron bomb went off with John XXIII and Vatican II.
    I wonder if any Novus Ordites can grasp the incongruity.
    Oh, wait. They changed the definitions of holiness and virtue, too.

    • Clare Forkin

      A very well argued point! But what implications can this have for the Doctrine of the Communion of Saints with all the above named imposters? Could one speak of a Communion of Saints in the Catholic Church and a Communion of Satan worship in the Pretend Church that calls itself Catholic?

    • Sonia

      And the acting definition of a miracle. According the heresiarchs a miracle is just a word that denotes a natural occurrence that makes people feel fuzzy and luvvy.

    • Pascendi

      “Ecclesiological neutron bomb” is a brilliant analogy. It kills off people (in this case souls) but leaves the structures mostly intact.

  4. Paul Bays

    I continue studying about this Sedevecantism. I have another question if I may ask, Sedes believe that the church after V2 is a a false church and there are only false Popes, false Bishops etc. they are in your view not Popes and they are not Bishops correct? You also believe that the Fatima visions are true correct? You believe the third secret may have been that Mary warned about this,correct?

    • 2c3n1 .

      1. All the bishops are valid until 1969 and some of those consecrated before could still be alive.
      2. Yes.
      3. Not exactly. I don’t think there’s mention of a false pope specifically. It would be something like apostasy at the top.
      4. They weren’t false in the 1960’s and before, and most weren’t false in the 1970’s and perhaps the 1980’s. So “bishops would fight against bishops” could be true. That being said, Our Lady of Good Success stated that in the 20th century “…the Church will go through a dark night for lack of a Prelate and Father to watch over it…” When do you suppose that happened in the 20th Century?

    • sharbel23

      In addition to the answer given by 2c3n1, I would mention that those words which you refer to about Bishops fighting against Bishops – are I think from the Akita apparitions, not Fatima. I’m not 100% sure of this, but I know that the apparition of Akita did say exactly that, and I don’t think that Our Lady of Fatima said it. If she did, can you please provide a reference.
      I believe that the Akita apparitions are false and not from Our Lady at all, but the devil.
      I believe this because the apparitions talk about a future crisis, when the crisis was already in full swing with the Vatican 2 apostasy – this being a common deception of the devil in false apparitions, to talk about some future event so that Catholics do not wake up to the fact that the crisis/chastisement is already here. Also, this deception is now being played out with Bergoglio, with his adding of blasphemy, chaos, stupidity and attack on the moral law, to the already existing heresy of V2 – this being a strategy of the devil so that people think the crisis is only now, and thus fail to recognize that the root of the problem is V2 with it’s heresy and apostasy.

      Also, the Akita apparitions recognize Vatican 2 “clergy” as valid Catholic clergy, when they are not.
      Also, in the messages, the apparitions say “Pope”.
      It is a known characteristic of false apparitions that the devil says “Pope”, but true apparitions say: “Holy father.”
      It is – I believe – smuggled in by saying it in a sentence where the words are: “Pope, Bishops, and priests”, or something like that, but it is there nonetheless.

      • Paul Bays

        Sorry It may have been Akita, she also mentioned something about a man wearing a white coat being Pearce’s, a supposed reference to the assassination of JP2. Interesting she didn’t say the pope

        • sharbel23

          The part I was referring to was the third message of Oct 13 1973.
          The apparition talks of a future infiltration – which is one of the main reasons I think it is false and a deception of the devil, seeing that the infiltration had already happened, and it’s main project V2 had been accomplished.
          Notice it is a third message, and on Oct 13, both references to Fatima. The devil often tries to eclipse things which he can’t get rid of.

          “My dear daughter, listen well to what I have to say to you. You will
          inform your superior. As I told you, if men do not repent and better
          themselves, the Father will inflict a terrible punishment on all
          humanity. It will be a punishment greater than the deluge, such as one
          will never have seen before. Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe
          out a great part of humanity…the good as well as the bad, sparing
          neither priests nor faithful. The survivors will find themselves so
          desolate that they will envy the dead. The only arms which will remain
          for you will be the Rosary and the Sign left by My Son. Each day recite
          the prayer of the Rosary. With the Rosary pray for the Pope, bishops and
          the priests. The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church
          in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, and
          bishops against other bishops. The priests who venerate me will be
          scorned and opposed by their confreres…churches and altars sacked; the
          Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will
          press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the
          Lord. The demon will be especially implacable against souls consecrated
          to God. The thought of the loss of so many souls is the cause of my
          sadness. If sins increase in number and gravity, there will be no longer
          pardon for them. With courage, speak to your superior. He will know how
          to encourage each one of you to pray and to accomplish works of
          reparation. It is Bishop Ito, who directs your community. You have still
          something to ask? Today is the last time that I will speak to you in
          living voice. From now on you will obey the one sent to you and your
          superior. Pray very much the prayers of the Rosary. I alone am able
          still to save you from the calamities which approach. Those who place
          their confidence in me will be saved.”

          • Paul Bays

            If this apparition was false, It seems strange that the Devil would ask us to say the Rosary, doesn’t the Devil despise the Rosary above all prayers?

          • 2c3n1 .

            The devil might have you pray the rosary if the deception was to keep you in heresy and in a religion with no sacraments. You might even pray JP2’s luminous mysteries. The devil would love that.

          • Paul Bays

            It looks like schism is around the corner, Pope Francis may be declared a heretic and a new pope elected from the Bishops who are faithful to church teaching. Read the latest post from Onepeterfive. There lies hope, God has not abandoned his church. A Split will renew the church and I think you Sedevacantists would receive under a Pope like Burke or Schneider, a chance to address your grievances, let’s hope for a decision soon God bless

          • Lee

            The problem is that Burke and Schneider aren’t any more Catholic than Francis. They accept the heretical Vatican II council. Hope does exist but not in the new church. Plus its automatic when a pope ceases to be head of the church. He doesn’t need to be declared something he already manifestly is = apostate heretic

          • 2c3n1 .

            Onepeterfive holds to two key heresies, namely an unholy church and a formally divided church. Burke, Schneider, and the rest of the novus ordo gang do not profess the Catholic Faith, either. What you have is a false religion masquerading as the Catholic Church. We sedevacantists are not from that religion. We are Catholics holding fast to the Faith. When will you become a Catholic and reject the novus ordo sect founded in the 1960’s? What’s holding you back?

          • sharbel23

            The devil dose ask and encourage people to pray the rosary in false revelations. He is happy to suffer a loss – even something quite significant, if he can gain something even bigger.
            The fact is that when we say “pray” we are talking about a certain action, which has it’s various qualities. If people pray with an imperfect or bad disposition, then even if they pray the rosary, it’s effect is not great.
            A spirit of disobedience and pride vitiates the effectiveness of prayer badly, and that is what is happening I believe with such people as those who follow the false apparitions of Medjugorje, where the devil encourages them to pray the rosary.
            The prayers do have some good effects, and these make the apparitions seem authentic because of the good fruits, but the bigger thing the devil hopes to gain back for his losses, is keeping them in the Vatican 2 sect, and also setting them up for deception when critical apocalyptic events take place – then the devil will use the trust he has gained and tell lies about critical events, such as the resurrection of the true church – eg. he will say that it is the work of the devil and that they should stay loyal to the true “pope” Benedict XVI, who is the devils fake traditional saviour / suffering /imprisoned pope / subject of prophecy…to keep people to the last moment in the Vatican 2 sect and away from the true church.

          • Paul Bays

            It looks like schism is around the corner, Pope Francis may be declared a heretic and a new pope elected from the Bishops who are faithful to church teaching. Read the latest post from Onepeterfive. There lies hope, God has not abandoned his church. A Split will renew the church and I think you Sedevacantists would receive under a Pope like Burke or Schneider, a chance to address your grievances, let’s hope God bless

          • sharbel23

            You seem to miss the main point of our position.
            We believe that Roncalli was not a true pope, and so had no authority in the church, so the council he called was not a Catholic council and not protected by the Holy Ghost, and likewise with Montini, he was not a pope, so all his changes were invalid, so we believe that:
            – Vatican 2 teaches the heresies of modernism previously condemned by the church authority.
            – All Montini’s changes are invalid and also sacramentally defective, so in the Vatican 2 sect, no priests ordained in Montini’s rite, no bishops, no valid mass, no sacramental absolution, no anointing of the sick.
            Marriage and baptism are still possible.

          • anna mack

            He doesn’t miss the point at all. If you look at his other posts, you will realise that he’s a troll (for want of a better word).

  5. Pascendi

    This is only the beginning. They will eventually canonize the likes of “Saint” Hans Kung, “Saint” Karl Rahner, “Saint” Yves Congar, “Saint” Henri de Lubac, “Saint” Hans Urs von Balthasar, and “Saint” Edward Schillebeeckx. Not to mention Achille Liénart, Jean-Marie Villot, Carlo Martini, and Walter Casper. I’m sure this list doesn’t even scratch the surface. And if any of them happened to be excommunicated at the time of their death, don’t sweat it. So was “Saint” Martin Luther.

  6. bartmaeus

    Surprising that Francis hasn’t been canonised yet. All the miracles he’s performed – correcting the errors and rigidities that had crept into the doctrinal content of the living tradition of the ever-mutating essence of the trans-Catholic religious nexus that he infallibly heads, and, of course, reversing the sad effects of the “Reformation.”

    • Sonia

      Surely the college of cardinals can canonize the colleague-heresiarch now that heaven and earth, saint and sinner, are one in the melting pot of VII.

      • bartmaeus

        By reason of their Apostolic authority, and newfound capacity for discernment, and amendment of the “cherished beliefs and long-held biases,” they can do just about anything, as the ever-laughing head of the Cold Windy City briefly gathered himself to declare:

        “It is our job to take up that discernment. It takes time. It involves discipline. Most importantly it requires that we be prepared to let go of cherished beliefs and long-held biases.”

        Then again, in light of Francis’ “big tent” theology, which claims the broad and easy way leads to life, while the strait and narrow way leads to Pharisaic exclusion and the Outer Darkness, there is not much of a hooplaa about declaring someone canonized. Just demonstrate them to have been “disciplined enough to let go of those “long-held biases”, and he’s already inside the big tent.

        I wonder about that phrase you use, “college of cardinals.” It sounds too archaic or something. Perhaps CABAL of cardinals might be more appropriate.

  7. Lee

    This was well made comment N.O.W. from the article “But at this point, there is probably no more need to disguise it — there are simply not enough people who care, and it is much easier to deceive the masses than to convince them that they’ve been deceived.”

  8. turn2

    “British researcher Paul Spackman reported that when a bitter national debate erupted in Italy in the 1970s over divorce, Luciani’s views lined up solidly with orthodox teaching. The difference, he said, is Luciani had a keener sense than some others of how to expound that teaching in the context of the times.

    “In 1974, Spackman said, Luciani was opposed to efforts by right-wing Christian Democrats to stage a national referendum seeking to overturn the liberalization of divorce, fearing it would divide the church and underscore its declining influence. (In the end, the referendum was soundly defeated.)

    “Overall, Spackman describes John Paul I as a man of ‘doctrinal rigor leavened by pastoral and social open-mindedness,’ and said he left behind a ‘legacy of gentle and compassionate bridge-building.'”
    How is Luciani’s support of the status quo of liberalized divorce laws to be reconciled with the claim his view of divorce “lined up solidly with orthodox teaching (on matrimony)”, when the two are plainly incompatible? This was accomplished, we are told, as he sought to “expound that teaching in the context of the times”. But “the context of the times” is simply another way of saying Modernism, as if the Catholic dogma forbidding divorce can be altered or reversed to fit a plainly anti-Catholic zeitgeist,

    This idea that reversing such laws would “divide the church” is itself an unintentional indictment of the Novus Ordo sect as a counterfeit of Catholicism for in the true Church there isn’t open rebellion against matters that have been settled since the time of Christ, save by heretical rogues like a Luther or a Calvin.

    As for “declining influence”, what really is underscored is the growing relativism that emerged after Vatican II: Never mind that his “social open-mindedness” was such as to allow a legislative battering ram be unleashed against the family unit, the cornerstone of society.

  9. Vinny Zee

    Not only this, but I wonder your thoughts on who have been declared “doctors of the church” since 1959? Should we be suspect of these? I say this because I’ve heard more than once that Benedict XVI will be declared a doctor of the church. On January 16, 1946, Pius XII declared St. Anthony of Padua 1195 – 1231 a doctor of the church. After that we have the following:

    St. Lawrence of Brindisi 1559 – 1619 (March 19, 1959 by John XXIII)
    St. Catherine of Siena 1347 – 1380 (October 4, 1970 by Paul VI)
    St. Teresa of Avila 1515 – 1582 (September 27, 1970 by Paul VI)
    St. Therese of Lisieux 1873 – 1897 (October 19, 1997 by John Paul II)
    St. John of Avila 1500 – 1569 (October 7, 2012 by Pope Benedict XVI)
    St. Hildegard of Bingen 1098 – 1179 (October 7, 2012 by Pope Benedict XVI)
    St. Gregory of Narek 951 – 1003 (February 21, 2015 by Pope Francis)

    However, all of these Saints come from an important period in the church, don’t they? I know many people venerate the lives of St. Teresa of Avila and St. Therese of Lisieux. However, should we not consider their work or theology as that of a “doctor of the church” in the same light of how we’d see St. Robert Bellarmine 1542 – 1621 (declared a Doctor of the church on September 17, 1931 by Pius XI)?

    • BurningEagle

      If the usurpers who took possession of the papacy in October of 1958 were devoid of papal authority, then any and all of their acts are null and void. It does not matter if they were honoring St. Theresa of Avila or praising Mahatma Gandhi. All their actions are worthless.

        • BurningEagle

          I am saying that the acts of Roncalli, Montini, Luciani, Wojtyla, The Rat, and Jorge have as much weight and authority as would similar declarations from Billy Graham or Ethel Mermann. Roncalli et al. were not Catholics. They were/are heretics. As such, they can hold no office. They were/are outside the Church. Therefore all their legislation, their pronouncements, their designations, etc. are as useless as if your local pastor of the “First Ebenezer Methodist Baptist Zion Church of God in Christ” had done them. They are null and void.

          It has nothing to do with the worthiness or unworthiness of those whom were the recipients of these titles.

          • Vinny Zee

            What’s your take on the Divine Mercy and sister Faustina Kowalska?

          • BurningEagle

            I am not a proponent of private revelations. I have written about such things in previous posts to folks on NOW. In as much as this is NOT a chat room, I will be brief: One does not need any private revelations in order to save one’s soul. You will not be judged on how well versed you are in the the apparitions of Our Lady of Wallsingham. But you will be judged on how well you learned your faith (i.e. your catechism) including worship, morals, discipline, and doctrine.
            NOW can address the Divine Mercy revelations. I know little or next to nothing about them. But since they were pushed by JP2, who was one of the most evil men to have ever lived, I am disposed even more to completely ignore them, or outright reject them.
            Certainly, if it is not something which Holy Mother Church has judged to be worthy of belief for Catholics, I ignore it. Roncalli through Jorge are certainly NOT mouthpieces of Holy Mother Church.
            I have a vague recollection that they were considered false under Pius XII’s reign, but my memory is not good.
            Remember: Divine Revelation ended with the death of St. John the Evangelist. The DEPOSIT OF THE FAITH is just that. It is a deposit of truths given to the Church from two sources: Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition. It is the Church which infallibly proposes to us what is contained in that deposit, its proper interpretations, etc. It is the Church which has declared what is part of Sacred Scripture, and what is outside of Sacred Scripture. It is the Church which tells us what Holy Tradition is, and what it is not.

          • Vinny Zee

            I learned more in the comment sections than I did from the article. Yes, I had already known that Ottaviani had already assigned it to the condemned book list of the Vatican. Initially I learned Piux XII had blessed an image of the Divine Mercy, but later I learned it appeared he did condemn the work. Strangely, the most direct condemnation of the work came under John XIII. TIA also had a very interesting article on this issue. Anyway, I began looking into it, because it was recommended to me as something to check out. Initially I didn’t have too much of an issue with it, but suspected something strange when I came to the part of her diary where she talked about the host jumping out of the Tabernacle three times and she had to put it back. Then I was looking at a life size photo of the Divine Mercy and something didn’t sit right, so I at that moment decided to investigate it further.

            Anyway, if you’re interested, the TIA article is here:

          • BurningEagle

            That article was also in the novusordowatch link which I sent you.

          • BurningEagle

            The writings were put on the index!
            It is just another example of what was wrong becoming what is right.

  10. Sonia

    Antichrist Novus Ordo Heresiarchs of Freemasonic celebration…..Roncalli/N.O.Heresiarch-John
    XXIII (1958-63) — ‘Saint!’; Montini/ N.O.Heresiarch-Paul6(1963-78) — ‘Blessed!’;
    Luciani/N.O.Heresiarch – John Paul I (1978) — ‘Venerable!’; Wojtyla/N.O.Heresiarch -John Paul II (1978-2005) — ‘Saint!’
    …. “Even hell has its heroes, signore”:

    Would have commented on Tradcast but don’t have the apps.

  11. Rafael

    I’m very new to this web-site. In reading some of the fascinating articles here, it appears that there were a lot of shenanigans going on in Vatican II to discredit the true teaching of the Catholic Church. It appears that this may have been the beginning of the efforts to destroy the Church that Pope Leo XIII had spoke of in his vision of the “dialogue” (another Modernist term) between Jesus and Satan, where Jesus was giving Satan “100 years” to destroy His Church. Although we’re not exactly sure when the 100 years began or even if they have begun at all, what DOES appear clear is that Vatican II was an effort from OUTSIDE the Church as well as INSIDE the Church to destroy Jesus’ Church and lead many sheep astray. If anyone can shed some light on this, I would great appreciate it.
    As a starting point, I’m familiar with the Bella Dodd infiltration of the Marxists into the Church; I’m familiar with Jesuit John Courtney Murray’s twisting of Church teaching (as highlighted on this web-site); I’m familiar with Jesuit Malachi Martin working with some Jewish organizations to twist the Church teachings on the necessity for Jews to convert; I’m familiar with Fr. Gregory Baum drafting the very luke-warm, ambiguous document known as Nostra Aetate. All the above appeared to have occurred during or around the time of Vatican II. So, if you can please shed some light on this, I would greatly appreciate it.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.