„And thou wilt be like God“ (Gen. 3,5)
– Final point is reached -
translated by Elisabeth Meurer
Reading those verses of Genesis dealing with God’s Commandment and the seduction by the snake is useful. The drama which Adam and Eve have to face there runs through the entire human race.
On the one hand God forbids them to eat „from the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil“ (Gen. 2, 17), because otherwise they would die, on the other hand, making God out to be a liar, the snake „which was more cunning than all the other animals“ (Gen. 3,1) promises them, that they would „not die“ but „be like God“ (Gen. 3, 5). They are promised to become like God as a result of their disobedience towards God, and finally Adam and Eve are seduced by this prospect. And Adam and Eve were not the only ones who were victims of their hubris! This „No“ of man against God’s will runs through the whole history of man. For how many times people succumb to the temptation „of being like God“..., so that the bloody sacrifice of Christ on the Cross was required in order to bring them back into the Covenant with God. From this point history could be rewritten as the history of salvation, though without losing its dramatic poles of obedience and disobedience, of humility and arrogance. For God’s offer for salvation is only an offer which only the humble person acquires, wants to acquire. I call to your mind the attempt of Arius to negate the Godlikeness of Christ in order to see in Him only the mere human being. As a result, His Commandments would have lost their absoluteness.
The decision of a clique by the end of the 18th century, which was small fist, to absolutely reject God’s revelation and His institution of salvation, the Church, and to do their utmost to oppose them has had an influence on our time which is more than obviously existing in this tension between salvation and disaster, suffering from it and seeming to perish by it. I am talking about the order of the Illuminati, which had been founded by Adam Weishaupt in 1776. We are directly affected by his concept of a world without God to an extent which is not clear to most of us... and they cannot see through this interconnection either.. and those who could shut themselves off from it.
Very few know for example that Weishaupt’s revolutionary ideas found their way into the documents of Vatican II. Those documents supposedly edited in order to reform the life of the Church are inspired by the clear goals of the destruction of the Church founded by Christ (from within)! (NB: I have dealt several times – partly this is also caused by my profession – with the question of whether and in which way these ideas could find their way into the heads of the council’s protagonists, so that these could then establish them in the documents: by ideational invention, by literary rediscovery or by a living tradition since Adam Weishaupt; i. e. by transmitting these ideas in a secret society, i. e. transmitting these ideas in an uninterrupted chain of interpersonal relations. Without being able to completely clarify this issue historically – until now I have had no time to do so – I tend to suppose that the revolution against God and his claim of absoluteness has been carried out by means of a living tradition of destructive ideas. Here I am also thinking of the `disruption’ Rampolla who, as a freemason was said to be papabile already in 1903).
More than 23 years ago, I had once assessed in an essay published in this journal (EINSICHT, 12th year, no. 6 of March 1983, p. 194 ff.): “Where are we?” I am quite willing to repeat the result of this résumé, based on the characteristics of the Church – it is one, holy, catholic and apostolic – as criteria of judgement:
“Let us now apply the explained criteria to today’s situation of the so-called `church’ of the reform on one hand (a) and to the own church situation on the other hand. (...)
(a) The `church’ of the reform is neither one, nor holy, nor catholic and is about to lose the apostolic succession: It is a pseudo-`church’, a simple sect although with a tight organisation, legal structure and with an overwhelming influence on public life ... and an appendage of pseudo-orthodox characterised by lefèbvreist ideas. One should think again about the question of what is the intention of the adherents of the FSSPX as a matter of fact – independently from their subjective intentions: Submission to a sect and coexistence with heresy and apostasy. In this way, they are practising, on this level, the same ecumenism for which they reproach Montini and Wojtyla!
(b) But where are we now? This brings us finally back to our question. Besides the desperate situation concerning the self-sanctification of the ecclesiastic community and besides the vanishing exterior catholicity, the major problem in our present situation is and remains: regaining the ecclesiastic unity as a hierarchically structured religious community. This means the realisation of the following tasks: deposition of the `Papa haereticus’, condemnation of the heresies and the heretics, election of a pope, re-establishing the hierarchy and the Church’s asserting itself as a visible legal ecclesiastic community representing the sovereignty and eminence of the divine revelation. Concerning the issue of the groups in the religious underground asserting themselves as a church, one has to give one hint regarding the lamentable behaviour especially of traditionalist clerics: Whoever wants to know if a priest declares himself for the true Church should, when the opportunity arises, ask him to write out a stamped certificate of wedding and to carry out the marriage ceremony, or try to get a certificate of baptism plus baptism – to be read in this order: stamped certificate plus sacrament. The result will certainly be a surprise to inexperienced people only: The `stamp’ is mostly the cause of failure! You will be referred by these clerics to the `church’ of reform to receive invalid or doubtful sacraments. Anyway, you will be seduced to commit sacrileges, because the sect of reform (still) has the `stamp’.
One could object: We have had to do without the hierarchical, legal organisation (namely: the `stamp’) until now; we will be able to do without them in the future as well, because we have the sacraments, the faith and the succession. I answer: We are not allowed to do so! Besides the fact that the external catholicity would vanish, Christ has transferred the administration of the means of salvation to His CHURCH which has to administer them in the way ordered by HIM! Christ has established HIS CHURCH as an institution of salvation and not as a mere community of profession characterized by the fact that all its members have the same (theoretical) views without forming a true long-term relationship (as for example the Protestants). This institution has been established as one and not as a multitude of sects. If you do without the restoration of the Church as a hierarchically structured organism, you will lose your power to legally administer and receive His means of salvation, the sacraments. Furthermore, there are, however, some other, very decisive points. It has already been said at the beginning, that it is the union of the ecclesiastic community with its head, the Pope, which guarantees the union of faith. Without a supreme Office which is binding in its dogmatic decisions, the union of faith is in danger. For in the future, new problems will possibly arise which will have to be solved out of the faith. Who will give us an authorized answer (authorized by Christ)? Without a real answer there is the danger of descending into an unintentional Protestantism, a fact overlooked by most people. A problem by which the lack of hierarchy can be noticed most clearly is the much-cited disagreement and quarrelling between the traditionalists. (...) The lack of agreement is caused by the hierarchy which has not (yet) been (re-)established. Thus, we will have to direct our attention mainly to the restoration of the ecclesiastic, hierarchical union which is to be achieved under the pastoral direction of the bishops and priests. The issue of who will belong to the true Church will be decided by that which everyone wants to contribute to this union and to its establishment, which can also take place in stages, respectively. The mere rejection of the so-called `NOM’ (new order of the Mass), of Wojtyla and Lefebvre is no longer sufficient! Where are we now? AT A CROSSROADS BETWEEN SECTARIANISM AND TRUE CHURCH!”
This is the description of the situation at that time. This result has not become less frightening, but the situation has become dramatically worse in certain ways... in a way immediately concerning the religious/ecclesiastic existence of every single faithful.
In Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, we do not only have a successor of Johannes Paul II. who also supports the syncretist ideas of the latter, of the one God who is equally worshipped by Jews, Christians and Muslims. (On March 16, 2006, Joseph Ratzinger gave a speech on the occasion of the reception of a delegation of the “American Jewish Committee” at the Vatican (zenit.org, 16/03/06). It shows that he uses his rank as a so-called Pope for purposes of the world alliance inspired by freemasonry. Among others he said: “Judaism, Christianity and Islam believe in the one God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth. As a result, all three monotheist religions are called to work together for the commonwealth of mankind by serving the cause of justice and peace in the world.”) Ratzinger holds this course and considers continuing the started procedure of alliance to be a special issue of the present time: “This is important especially today, when special attention has to be paid to teaching respect towards God, the religions and their symbols as well as the holy places and places of worship. Religious heads have the responsibility of working towards reconciliation by a honest dialogue and by acts of human solidarity.” This manifestation of the Masonic ideal of the equal validity of the religions in a person on the Cathedra Petri was the declared aim of the cultural war in Italy in 1870, controlled by the freemasons: “What we are looking for and what we must await, like the Jews awaiting their Messiah, is a pope according to our requirements.” (Compare the following extract of “Der stille Krieg gegen Thron und Altar”/The Silent War against Throne and Altar, by Pachtler).
By treating the religions as equivalent, not only Christianity is destroyed following the method: All religions are of the same validity... then they are also unimportant; but also the basis of any religion. For what does “the same validity” mean? Well, nothing else than what Sartre phrases regarding the values: man needs an absolute idea. But which one he chooses is up to himself. Finally this means that man creates his own god.
However, Ratzinger not only continues the work of his predecessor, but he has created a climate of intellectual culture silencing all critics by cleverly interlocking elements of tradition and revolution... according to Hegel’s thesis: “But that is why the absolute itself is the identity of the identity and the non-identity; there are at the same time opposition and oneness in it.” (“Differenz des Fichte’schen und Schelling’schen Systems der Philosophie”/The Difference between Fichte’s and Schelling’s System of Philosophy, Hamburg, 1962, p. 77), i. e.: A = A and –A at the same time. How is this thesis applied in Ratzinger’s activities? Here is a procedure which has already been mentioned: According to the Protestant negotiating party, the declaration by representatives of the conciliar church and by Lutherans concerning justification signed in 1999 was decisively formulated by Ratzinger, a declaration opposed to the anathematized regulations of the Trident Council. Upon signing this declaration, Ratzinger then dissociated from it but finally let it pass nevertheless as a prefect of the Congregation of Faith. To make this procedure fit into the logical schema: A = (also) –A, but this –A = (also) –(-A), without forgetting that A = A, without confirming that this –(-A) = A.
In the meantime it is reported more and more often – among others in the issue of DIE WELT of October 16, 2006 and the “Pfarrbrief für Steffeshausen” (letter to the parishioners of Steffeshausen) – that Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is said to have signed a decree already in September, which firstly was supposed to be published in November, but the publishing of which is now supposed to be delayed owing to the resistance from the German and French episcopate; by the latter, the “old mass” in the version of 1962 (promulgated by John XXIII) is supposed to be permitted again as an “extraordinary rite” – besides the NOM as `ordinary one’. Here is the view of the so-called Catholic press: The following quotation bears the title: “Desired goal reconciliation – news going round in Vatican about a document supposed to facilitate the celebration of the old mass”: “Pope Benedict XVI now obviously wants to clear up the ill-feelings existing until today. According to sources in Vatican, he also emphasises in this letter the principle that there is only one liturgical rite in the Latin church, which has two forms, though: the ordinary rite (Novus Ordo), which is usually celebrated in the national language, and the extraordinary (old) rite. Both forms are of the same value, so it says in the text. The bishops are encouraged to support the free use of both forms. In Rome, they are speculating that the Pope might perhaps publish the letter already in November – at the same time as the post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation closing the eucharistic synod. (Extract of an article published in the Tagespost of November 2006).
And there is again Ratzinger at work! In plain English this means: one rite in two forms – a valid and an invalid one – this means the Masonic equal validity of true and false, expressed in a short and logical way: A = A and – at the same time!!!
This would at last fulfil M. Lefebvre's wish, who , together with de Saventhem, had asked Paul VI to allow the “peaceful coexistence of the pre- and post-conciliar rites”. The adherents of Econe might consider this permission as a victory and as a consequence of their “bouquet for the Pope” consisting of “one million of rosaries” (see the letter by the general superior Fellay of 16/7/06 published in the “Mitteilungsblatt” of September 2006). In reality the chaos might become even worse: Besides the invalid N.O.M. a valid rite in desecrated churches... and who will consecrate or `consecrate’ the chalice? Indeed Lefebvre never said that the so-called `new mass’ was invalid! When he was asked about the distortion of the words of consecration at a visit to Munich in winter 1973, he had replied that it was sufficient for the priest to say: “This is my body”, “this is my blood”, that adding “for everyone” did not change anything about that (that was also Dr. Gamber’s view). When asked directly by a participant in the discussion of that time if there would also be a consecration if the priest sacrificed the cup using the words: “This is my blood which is shed for the devil”, Lefebvre supported the opinion that even then there would be a consecration. Upon that the mentioned participant left the discussion because he could not stand this answer.
However, Econe itself is going to worsen the chaos not only by the “peaceful coexistence of the pre- and post-conciliar rites” but it is also starting an action of its own. Those traditionalists, to whom clarifying the post-conciliar reforms in a serious and dogmatically relevant way has never been important but only fighting out a dispute about rites, have in the meantime started a large-scale action by writing to their “fellow clergymen” – talking of the modern religious ministers of the conciliar church (see the full-page advertisement in the “Kirchliche Umschau” no. 9 of Sept. 2006) in order to present them the so-called “old mass” with the corresponding theological explanations on a DVD, with the aim of winning these fellow clergymen for the celebration of the “old mass” (of 1962) after its official permission. In the meantime more than 1000 “priests” are said to have taken advantage of this offer!!! Isn’t that a reason for rejoicing?
When I reached this point the introduction to the “Declaratio" of Mgr. Ngo-dinh-Thuc came to me, which he had promulgated in 1982: “How does the Catholic Church of the present show itself in our view? In Rome, `Pope’ John Paul II is reigning. (...) Outside of Rome the Roman Catholic Church seems to flourish (...). In so many churches the Mass is celebrated every day, and on Sundays the churches hold countless faithful who go to Mass and receive the Holy Communion. But what does today’s church look like in God’s view?”
Yes, what does this action look like in God’s view? Let’s suppose that the addressees are interested in the old liturgy, perhaps even especially young men discover the special spirituality of this rite and they would use it... At this point one must simply ask: Who are the addressed “fellow clergymen”, what requirements for celebration do they meet? Even Mgr. Lefebvre – already having the blemish of Liénart – had his doubts about the validity of the new rites of ordination, which have been in force in the conciliar church since 15/08/1968, and consecrated sub conditione many a modernist clergyman who had changed camps and joined the adherents of Econe – for example Fr. Reiling, known as Fr. Seraphim. According to our theological investigations (see the treatises by Dryden, Graus, Wendland and Howson in the EINSICHT, among others in bulletin no. 2 of July 1981, in bulletin no. 6 of April 1987), the new rites of ordination transmit neither priestly nor episcopal powers. That would mean: Soon we would not only have the praised “peaceful coexistence of the pre- and post-conciliar rites” – the juxtaposition of a valid and an invalid rite – but also possibly the `celebration’ of the valid rite by a layman who thinks to be a priest... a situation already known to us by the case of Lingen. This would be perfect perversion! And no one wants nor is able to see through this diaballein, this confusion any more.
However, if anyone now thinks that this foreseeable chaos cannot be surpassed in its spiritual corruption, he is wrong. A = A and –A. Now here Ratzinger arrives on the scene again. And this “scene” has been planned: According to the latest news being rumoured, Ratzinger is planning to publish a decree forbidding the use of “for everyone” in the words of consecration for the Cup and replacing them by “for many”. So by putting in an orthodox modulus or `spare part’, the heretic N.O.M. is to be saved... a perfidious programme which a certain Mr. L. from M. thought up in the eighties and which Benedict XVI is obviously planning to apply now.
A seemingly saved N.O.M., alternately said by laymen or even by a person “perhaps” being a clergyman: That is really the abomination of devastation!!! (see the prophet Daniel) I had already drawn the readers’ attention to the fact that the so-called traditionalist intelligentsia falls silent with so much sophisticated Hegelianism. For as Karl Valentin didn’t say: “Whatever is not supposed to be, may not be.”
But it is not only this civilized Christianity which falls silent, but we, too, who – already a bit more depressed in view of the great silence within and around us – claim to support the true doctrine as scattered children of a world-wide Diaspora. Where are our so self-confident Thomists who defy Ratzinger/Benedict XVI? They do not exist (any more). They have kind of mummified in their Thomism, which is blind to Hegel’s idealism. And where are the “sheep”, the simple faithful, who should, however, gather in the sheepfold?! They are not willing to take care of their own religious existence any more either, i. e.: They are always showing that they are not willing to survive spiritually.
We are at the end of a development, at the very dead of a night.
From: EINSICHT of December 2006, 36th year, no. 7, p. 225 – 228