The Facts About “Pope John Paul I” – Albino Luciani
What You Need To Know About the Man who Claimed to be the Pope from August 26 to September 28, 1978
“John Paul I”
On August 26, 1978, the Modernist Sect elected Bp. Albino Luciani to the “papal office”, and he took the name John Paul I, in honor of John XXIII and Paul VI. He was the first papal claimant in history to take a double name. (At the time, people joked that his successor would take the name Ringo George — a reference to the rock band The Beatles, whose members consisted of John Lennon, Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, and George Harrison.)
In the Novus Ordo Church Luciani is, of course, in line for being declared a “saint”, just like all other deceased false Popes who aren’t canonized yet. Many semi-traditionalists seem to have a soft spot for “Pope” Luciani, and perhaps this has to do with the fact that he died unexpectedly a mere 33 days after his election, on September 28 of the same year. Although circumstances suggest he was in fact murdered after attempting to expose and root out Freemasons from the Vatican and clean up the Vatican Bank, this tragic reality cannot blind us to the fact that, at the end of the day, even though he may not have had any sympathy for the Masons, Albino Luciani was still a Modernist who participated in the destruction of Catholicism and publicly adhered to the errors of Vatican II and Paul VI. In fact, in some ways Francis’ “humble Pope” gig was already anticipated by John Paul I.
Let’s recap: It was John Paul I who abolished the solemn papal coronation ceremony, replacing it instead with a mere “installation”. It was John Paul I who stopped using the gestatorial chair and only resumed its use after people complained they could no longer see their “Pope”. It was John Paul I who first chose to use a curious double name because he couldn’t decide which of his Modernist predecessors — John XXIII and Paul VI — he loved more. It was Albino Luciani who advised “Pope” Paul VI in 1965 to ease the restrictions on the use of contraceptives, even though Paul VI ultimately decided against it (well, sort of).
The following text is taken from a professional biographical database and gives an interesting picture of Luciani. Although reluctant at first, he ended up embracing the same Modernist ideas of his two predecessors whom he so much admired, even when he knew full well that the novel teachings contradicted the old. He liked to participate in meetings with the open Modernists at the Second Vatican Council and dialogue with them, instead of shunning and denouncing them:
Bishop Luciani kept a low profile during Vatican Council II, commenced in 1962 by Pope John for the reformation, or, as it was more delicately put officially, ‘renewal,’ of the Roman Catholic Church. He was among those prelates who had difficulty in adjusting to some of the liberalizing steps taken by the council, such as the lessening of Papal authority in favor of the ‘collegiality’ of the world’s bishops. ‘The thesis I found hardest to live with was the one on religious freedom,’ he said later. ‘For years I had taught the public law theses of Cardinal [Alfredo] Ottaviani, according to which only the truth [as held by the Roman Catholic Church] had rights. In the end, I convinced myself we had been wrong.’
Like other conservatives at the council, Luciani disagreed with the liberal faction when, in the conservative view, it seemed to be calling for an interpretation of the church’s mission that would reduce it to a mere worldly agency of social action. Like them also, he was repelled by the efforts of some progressives from Germany and Holland to challenge such traditions as clerical celibacy and an exclusively male priesthood. But unlike most of the others, he tried to keep lines of communication open and participated in many meetings with the widely shunned progressives.
Bishop Luciani was a consultant to the sixty-member international commission formed by Pope Paul VI in 1963 to make recommendations for dealing with the problem of birth control. Luciani personally concluded that some accommodation for artificial birth control could be made within the teachings of the church, and he wrote to the Pope to that effect. The majority view in the report submitted by the commission in 1965 was that a modification of the traditional ban on contraception was possible and that, at the very least, no blanket prohibition should be made. Against the majority’s recommendation, Pope Paul in 1968 issued the encyclical Humanae Vitae, which firmly restated the papal opposition to birth control in all its forms, including the “pill.” Although saddened by the drift of middle-class Catholics from the church that was accelerated by the encyclical, Bishop Luciani, loyal to his Pope, suppressed any negative thoughts he might have entertained about Humanae Vitae.
(Source: Current Biography [Bio Ref Bank], 1978; Database: Biography Reference Bank [H.W. Wilson], s.v. “John Paul I, Pope.”)
It is true that, when compared to the trite Modernist drivel we’ve heard for decades from Francis, Benedict XVI, John Paul II, and Paul VI, Luciani could sound downright conservative at times and might have seemed “not too bad”, but this is merely by comparison and indicative of the terrible shape that “Catholicism” finds itself in today. The Vatican II Sect can hardly be the standard by which we measure orthodoxy. It would be like asking an alcoholic how much beer one should drink.
Let’s look at some more evidence of the liberalism of Albino Luciani.
In a sermon preached in 1976, he remarked that just before the Second Vatican Council began, he “happened to read at the same time two writings: one by Freud, the other by Gandhi” (Lori Pieper, ed., A Passionate Adventure: Living the Catholic Faith Today, [Bronx, NY: Tau Cross Books, 2013], Kindle loc. 4564); and although he denounced the anti-Christian Jewish Talmud as “full of fables and childish and bizarre things,” he also held that the diabolical work “can help us in understanding the Gospel at certain points” (ibid., loc. 2462). For the record, the Talmud “teaches that Jesus Christ was illegitimate and was conceived during menstruation; that he had the soul of Esau; that he was a fool, a conjurer, a seducer; that he was crucified, buried in hell and set up as an idol ever since by his followers” (Rev. I. B. Pranaitis, The Talmud Unmasked, p. 30).
In September of 1978, after calling U.S. President Jimmy Carter a “fervent Christian”, John Paul I said as part of his Sunday Angelus address:
And [Israeli] Premier Begin recalls that the Jewish people once passed difficult moments and addressed the Lord complaining and saying: “You have forsaken us, you have forgotten us!” “No!”—He replied through Isaiah the Prophet—”can a mother forget her own child? But even if it should happen, God will never forget his people”.
Also we who are here have the same sentiments; we are the objects of undying love on the part of God. We know: he has always his eyes open on us, even when it seems to be dark. He is our father; even more he is our mother. He does not want to hurt us, He wants only to do good to us, to all of us. If children are ill, they have additional claim to be loved by their mother. And we too, if by chance we are sick with badness, on the wrong track, have yet another claim to be loved by the Lord.
(John Paul I, Angelus Address, Sep. 10, 1978; underlining added.)
Although it is true that Almighty God loves us and takes care of us in a way that is like to a mother (see Is 49:15; Mt 23:37), it is complete nonsense to say not only that God is our mother, but even that He is our mother more so than He is our Father. The Most Holy Trinity has revealed Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (see Mt 28:19). Our Lord Jesus Christ referred to the First Person of the Blessed Trinity as “Father”, not “Mother” (see Mk 14:36), and taught us to do the same (see Mt 6:9). And as far as mother goes, our Lord gave His own Mother — the Blessed Virgin Mary — to us to be our spiritual mother (see Jn 19:26-27).
We have to remember the dire warnings of the true Popes about the dangers of heresy and other errors that work the destruction of souls, especially when they are not clearly out in the open but hide behind ambiguity and seeming contradiction, and are uttered by people who seem of good will:
- Pope Clement XIII warned against “diabolical error [which] easily clothes itself in the likeness of truth while very brief additions or changes corrupt the meaning of expressions; and confession, which usually works salvation, sometimes, with a slight change, inches toward death” (Encyclical In Dominico Agro, n. 2)
- Pope Pius VI rebuked those who “by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith that is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation” (Bull Auctorem Fidei)
- Pope Leo XIII warned that “[t]here can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition” (Encyclical Satis Cognitum, n. 9)
Likewise, Fr. Felix Sarda’s Vatican-approved work Liberalism is a Sin is very instructive with regard to the dangers of and the methods used by Liberals/Modernists, and the excuses that are typically made to escape condemnation.
Finally, the biggest Luciani whopper of them all came on Sunday, September 17, 1978, again at an Angelus address: John Paul I publicly praised Giosuè Carducci (1835-1907), an anti-clerical Italian poet and educator who was actually a Satanist! “Pope” Luciani said:
Italian professors have, in their history, classic cases of exemplary love and dedication to education. Giosuè Carducci was an university professor in Bologna. He went to Florence to some commemorative acts. One day, in the afternoon, he went to say good-bye to the Minister of Public Instruction. “No, no—said the Minister—, stay also until tomorrow”. “Excellence, it is not possible for me. Tomorrow, I have a class in the university and the boys will be waiting for me”. “I exempt you”. “You can exempt me, but I do not exempt myself”. Professor Carducci really had a concept as high about education as about students. He belonged to the class of those who say: “to teach Latin to John, it is not enough to know Latin, it is also necessary to know John and love him”. And also: “As much is worth the lesson as the training”.
“Papal” praise for the Satanist Carducci, who called Catholic priests “the real and unaltering enemies of Italy” and composed a blasphemous and anti-Catholic ode called “Hymn to Satan”! See this and more evidence of the Satanism of Carducci at the following link:
- John Paul I praises a Satanist during his Angelus Address! (Call Me Jorge Blog)
How can a supposedly Catholic Pope admire and commend a follower of the devil himself?! “For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?” (2 Cor 6:14-15).
The fact is that John Paul I was another wolf in sheep’s clothing. Yes, he had a very kind demeanor and seemedbenevolent, but no man of God would do and say the things Luciani did and said.
At the end of the day, Bp. Luciani was another dangerous Novus Ordo Modernist, whose attachment to the errors of Angelo Roncalli and Giovanni Montini found permanent expression in the choice of his “papal” name, “John Paul.” The fact that he added the numeral “I” — “the First” — to his name from the very beginning indicates that he wanted to begin an entire tradition of honoring Roncalli and Montini in the “papal” names henceforth.
And the rest, as they say, is history.