sac. Luigi Villa PAUL VI beatified? - Chiesa viva

sac. Luigi Villa 

PAUL VI 

beatified? 

The Apostolate of Our Lady of Good Success 

THE THE BOOK BOOK THAT THAT STOPPED STOPPED 

THE THE BEATIFICATION BEATIFICATION PROCESS PROCESS 

OF PAUL PAUL VI VI

y Father Luigi Villa 

(Doctor in Theology) 

Paul VI 

beatified? 


1288 Summit Ave Suite 107 

Oconomowoc, WI. 53066 USA 

Phone 262-567-0920 

Website: www.ourladyofgoodsuccess.com 

Email: ladyofgoodsuccess@sbcglobal.net

Copyright ® 2009 The Apostolate of Our Lady of Good Success 

4 

All rights reserved 

Printed in the United States of America 

First English Edition 

For information about permission ro reproduce selections from this book, 

write to Permissions: 


1288 Summit Ave Suite 107 

Oconomowoc, WI. 53066 USA 

Phone 262-567-0920 

Other former Editions: 

1998 : Editrice Civiltà, First Ed. in Italian 

www.chiesaviva.com - omieditricecivilta@libero.it 

2001 : Editrice Civiltà, Second Ed. in Italian 

www.chiesaviva.com - omieditricecivilta@libero.it 

2009 : Editions Saint-Remi, First Ed. in French 

www.saint-remi.fr 

2010 : Wydamnictwo ANTIK Marcin Dybowski - First Ed. in Polish 

www.ksiegarnia.antyk.org.pl - antyk@wolfnet.pl - antyk2@wolfnet.pl 

Front Cover: Photo of Paul VI on the papal throne.

«Truth shall make you free». 

(Jo. 8, 32) 

«Brothers, 

as stewards of the mysteries of God, 

stand up and act. 

That you see before your eyes 

the devastation 

that others are perpetrating». 

(St. Athanasius, “Greek Patrology”, XXVII, 219)

6 

SEMPER SUB SEXTO ROMA PERDITA FUIT 

«I’m listening to the innovators who want to dismantle the 

Holy Sanctuary, destroy the universal flame of the 

Church, reject Her finery, make Her remorseful for Her 

historical past! Well, my dear friend, I am convinced that 

the Church of Peter must take ownership of Her past, or 

else She will dig Her own tomb (...) A day will come when 

the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church 

will doubt as Peter doubted. Will be tempted to believe 

that man has become God, that His Son is merely a symbol, 

a philosophy like many others, and in churches, 

Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God 

awaits them, as the sinner who cried in front of the empty 

tomb: where hast thou put Him?». 

(From: “Pius XII Before History”)

PREFACE 

Paul VI was always an enigma to all, as Pope John XXIII himself 

observed. But today, after his death, I believe that can no longer 

be said, in light of the fact that in his numerous writings, speeches 

and actions, the figure of Paul VI is clear of any ambiguity. Even if 

proving this point is not so easy or simple, since he was a very complex 

character, both when speaking of his “preferences”, by way of 

suggestions and insinuations, and also for his jumping abruptly from 

one idea to another, and when he opted for Tradition, but then immediately 

preferred “novelty”; the whole thing in a language that 

was often very inaccurate. Simply read, for example, his Addresses 

of the “General Audiences”, to see a Paul VI made up of an irreducible 

duality of thought, a permanent conflict, almost, between 

his thought and that of the Church, which he was nonetheless to represent. 

Since his time at Milan, many already called him “the man of 

the utopias”, an Archbishop in pursuit of illusions, generous 

dreams, yes, yet unreal!”… Which brings to mind what Pius X 

used to say of the “Leaders” of the Sillon 1: “… The exaltation of 

1 Sillon was a social Movement, originated in France in 1893 by Marc Sangnier. 

At first, the movement adhered to the Pontifical directives. Leo XIII and Pius X 

honored Sangnier with praises. The organ of the Movement was the newspaper 

“Le Sillon” (The Furrow). Toward 1903, however, the Movement began to involve 

itself with political-social concepts that brought it to become a “Center of 

7

their sentiments, the undiscriminating good-will of their hearts, 

their philosophical mysticisms, mixed, with a measure of Illuminism, 

have carried them towards another Gospel, which they 

thought was the true Gospel of our Savior…” 2. 

Now, this our first “study” of research upon the historical-religious 

figure of Paul VI has brought us to a sad conclusion, and that 

is, that the “religion” preached by Paul VI did not always coincide 

with that authentic Religion, constantly taught for 2,000 years, by 

the perennial Magisterium, by all of the Saints and Doctors of the 

Church. Although it is far from my intention to judge Paul VI, for 

“only God probes kidneys and hearts” 3, we nonetheless wish to 

report, here, the painful findings of our study on him, convinced as 

we are that he has drawn the faithful toward a “new religion”, 

while this continues to carry the label of “Catholic”. 

For the drafting of this “Dossier” - given the seriousness of the 

“stakes”, especially when it comes to honestly taking one’s courage 

in both hands to tell the whole “truth”, despite the risk of becoming 

unpopular (exactly because, customarily, “veritas odium parit” 

- “Truth begets hatred”), the author of this work, for more than a 

decade, has been going through no less than 30,000 pages of encyclicals, 

speeches, Conciliar documents, historical journals, commentaries 

and magazines of all kinds, in order to gather an overview 

adequate enough to weigh up the Pontificate of a Pope who has already 

been consigned to History. Therefore, making it open for discussion 

and possible “judgments” as to his actions. 

It is evident that, with this work of mine, I do not claim to have 

done an exhaustive analysis of the entire oeuvre of Paul VI. Yet his 

quotations that I am presenting here cannot certainly have a different 

meaning from what they contain; and therefore, the presentation 

of other diverse texts of his, cannot but validate the “mens” of this 

“Hamlet”, that is, of the “double face” of Paul VI! 

However, the honest reader will find that our writings reproduce 

Moral Unit” independent of the doctrine of the Church. Hence the condemnation 

inflicted upon it by Pius X in 1910. 

2 S. Pius X, “Letter on the Sillon”, 25 August 25, 1910, n. 41. 

3 Psalm 7, 10. 

8

his true dominating “mentality”; one so deeply rooted in him as 

to have disastrously inspired his entire pastoral and his Magisterium. 

We are presenting this work, therefore, not to rejoice in it, but 

with sadness. It is but the execution of a painful duty. As Faith is by 

now publicly attacked, we can no longer feel bound to the duty of 

silence, but rather to that of unmasking an anti-Christian mentality, 

so many years in the making, and one that sunk its root in the Pontificate 

of Paul VI, too. 

Certainly, writing about him has not been easy on me, as Paul VI 

was a Pope at the center of an Ecclesiastical shipwreck that perhaps 

was, and still is, the most dreadful the Church has ever witnessed 

throughout Her history. 

In writing about him, therefore, one cannot be beating about 

bush, quibble in search of sensational episodes in order to hide the 

reality, that is, the real responsibilities of his unsettling Pontificate, 

in the complex framework of Vatican II. 

That is why, to come to a humanly equitable judgment of the 

thought of Paul VI and his responsibilities, I had to go over again 

the “official texts” of his writings and his words, pronounced during 

Vatican II and those of his executions. Only thus could I untangle 

the grave “question” of his responsibilities in the dreadful drama 

the Church has lived and has been living from the onset of the 

Council to this day. 

I may, therefore, make mine the lesson of Manzoni in his celebrated 

book: “Observations Upon Catholic Morality”, where in 

Chapter VII, he wrote: 

«… One must demand, of a doctrine, the legitimate 

consequences drawn from it, not those 

which passions might deduce from it». 

And so, let us open directly the pages of the First Address to 

the Council, in which Paul VI made his own, manifestly, the 

principle of “Modernist heresy” that Pope John XXIII has already 

expressed, in his Opening Address of the Council, on October 11, 

1962, (an Address, however, which had been inspired by the then 

Archbishop of Milan, Monsignor Giovanni Battista Montini), in 

which he said the following: 

9

10 

«Neque opus Nostrum, quasi ad finem primarium, 

eo spectat, ut de quibusdam capitibus 

praecipuis doctrinae ecclesiasticae disceptetur, 

sed potius ut ea ratione pervestigetur et exponatur, 

quam tempora postulant nostra». 

And here is the substance in the English language: 

«…But, above all, this Christian doctrine be 

studied and exposed through the forms of literary 

investigation and formulation of contemporary 

thought». 

Now, one such “principle” is unheard of in the history of all 

the century of the Ecclesiastical Magisterium, as it takes the place 

of the “dogmatic” principle, alone to offer proof and certainty of 

the “Catholic truth”, and the teaching Church has always taught 

that the “reason of believing” does not lean at all upon scientific 

conquests, achieved through man’s intellect, for the “reason of believing” 

rests exclusively upon the AUTHORITY of REVEALING 

GOD and upon that of the SUPREME MAGISTERIUM OF THE 

CHURCH, which received from Jesus Christ the mandate to teach it 

officially and in an infallible manner. 

The “principle” enunciated by Paul VI, on the contrary, becomes 

the negation of that of the APOSTOLIC TRADITION, wanted 

by God, and it reverses the traditional Magisterium of the 

Church, putting on the teacher’s desk, in place of “REVEALING 

GOD” and of the “TEACHING CHURCH”, the method of man’s 

autonomous investigation and the formulation of a purely human 

and arbitrary doctrine, peculiar to the philosophical-literary style of 

modern man – therefore, of the man of all ages, mutable with the 

times – oblivious that only the “truth” revealed by God is the sole 

immutable and eternal truth. 

Therefore, it vanished; that principle of the investigation to 

know “Revelation” by knowing the original teaching of the Church 

was done away with, instead it would be that of knowing the teaching 

of modern thought. 

But this smacks of “heresy”! 

One cannot invent dogma, nor can one reduce it into a conve-

nient cliché, as it has been done in these years of upheaval and arrogance, 

ignoring that Christ, and only Him, is and shall always 

be the absolute “truth”. 

How Paul VI should have shuddered, for inflicting on the 

Church of Christ this horrible catastrophe, by means and in the 

name of an alleged Ecumenical Council! 

Furtheremore how prevailing is still that whole 2nd Chapter of 

Epistle 2.a of St. Paul to the Thessalonians: 

«… For the mystery of iniquity already worketh: 

only that he who now holdeth do hold, until he be 

taken out of the way. And then that wicked one 

shall be revealed: whom the Lord Jesus shall kill 

with the spirit of his mouth and shall destroy with 

the brightness of his coming: him whose coming 

is according to the working of Satan, in all power 

and signs and lying wonders: And in all seduction 

of iniquity to them that perish: because they receive 

not the love of the truth, that they might 

be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation 

of error, to believe lying: That all may be 

judged who have not believed the truth but 

have consented to iniquity» 4. 

This is the reason, the only reason, in the light of the Gospel 

and of the Tradition of the Church that we are asking the reader to 

proceeed with the following pages. 

4 II Thessalonians II, 7-12. 

11

12 

«... I was not drawn to the clerical state which seemed 

sometimes stagnant, closed... involving the renunciation of 

worldly tendencies in proportion to the renunciation of the 

world... If I should feel this way, it means that I am called 

to another state, where I would be fulfilled more harmoniously 

for the common good of the Church». 

(Paul VI to Jean Guitton, in: “Dialogues with Paul VI,” p. 285) 

*** 

«I noticed how his thinking was secular. With him, I was 

not in the presence of a “cleric”, he even promoted an unexpectedly 

secular Papacy»! 

(Jean Guitton, in: “The Secret Paul VI”, Ed. Pauline)

PROLOGUE 

It was during the course of the works of the 35th Assembly of 

the Italian Bishops that Cardinal Ruini, the president of CEI (Italian 

Episcopal Conference), before the Pope and the Bishops announced 

the decision of filing the “cause for the beatification” of Paul VI. 

Although the assent of the “Permanent Council of the Italian 

Episcopal Conference” had already been granted, the procedure for 

the causes of the Popes also calls, however, for the consultation of 

the entire National Episcopate. A Pope, in fact, is not only the 

“Bishop” of Rome, but he is also the “Primate of Italy”, and 

therefore the “placet” of the Italian Bishops was one more passage 

required by the canonical procedure, such as it was established by 

Paul VI himself, and, subsequently, by John Paul II in the document 

“Divina Perfectionis Magister”. 

Rome is, however, the diocese of every Pope. It is Rome, therefore, 

that must act as official interlocutor with the “Congregation 

for the Causes of the Saints”. And so on May 13, 1992, Cardinal 

Ruini, Vicar of the Pope for the city of Rome, issued an “Edict”, 

appearing in the diocesan weekly “Roma Sette” in which, among 

other things, it stated: «We invite every single faithful to communicate 

to us directly, or else transmit to the Diocesan Tribunal of 

the Vicariate of Rome any “information” which, in any way, 

may argue against the reputation of sanctity of the said “Servant 

of God”». 

I waited a few more years before introducing this “evidence” 

against the reputation of sanctity” of Paul VI, both for religious 

courtesy toward part of the “senior consents” to the introduction of 

13

“the cause of beatification” and in order to first follow a part of 

the canonical process, hoping that at least someone would come 

forth with a few reasons “for serious doubt” (at least on the opportunity 

of this process!). However as this did not happen, the undersigned, 

who completely disagrees with this initiative for the 

beatification of Paul VI has felt the obligation to pass these comprehensive 

“informational pages” against the reputation of holiness.” 

Also, I was morally driven because of two “pushes” by John 

Paul II: one, on May 13, 1993 in his speech to the Bishops at the 

Italian Episcopal Conference saying: 

14 

«I received the notification of the opening of the 

process for the canonization (?!) of my Predecessor, 

Paul VI. To me, he was a Father, in a 

personal sense. For this reason, I can but express 

my great joy and my gratitude»... 

The other, just 15 years after the death of Paul VI, saying: 

«I do hope the process of beatification of Paul 

VI may soon be favorably concluded. We pray 

that the Lord will grant us to see, as soon as 

possible, this Servant of His elevated to the 

honors of the altars» 1. 

On May 25, 1992, however, I had already telephoned Monsignor 

Nicolino Sarale, at the “Secretary of State” office, a sincere 

friend and collaborator of “Chiesa Viva” 2 asking him for information 

on that “pronouncement” of Cardinal Ruini, regarding precisely 

the filing of the “cause for the beatification” of Paul VI. 

Well, he told me that the said “pronouncement” had been a sort of 

“coup d’état” on the part of the Vicar of Rome, since “the major- 

1 August,7, 1993. 

2 He had been collaborating with it for over 12 years, with the “Vangeli Festivi” 

and with the “Osservatorio Romano” page.

ity of the Italian Episcopate would squarely reject it” (sic). 

I leave with him - now in heaven - the responsibility of this clarification. 

I, however, believe this to be true, due to the Monsignor’s 

profound honesty and sincerity, and from the various other sources 

that I subsequently gathered, on this scheme to raise to the altars 

the two Popes of Vatican II, in order to manifest the “supernaturalness” 

of Vatican II, and, consequently, of this “New Church” 

with its “Reforms”, despite the explicit declaration of Paul VI himself 

when he spoke of the “self-destruction” afoot within the 

Church (for which, however, he himself was primarily responsible!). 

That being said, another justification, for my work on Paul VI, 

is the fact that, in any age, historians and theologians have always 

judged every “Pontificate”; thence there cannot be anything extraordinary 

in passing a “judgment” on the pontificate of Paul VI, as 

well. 

Moreover: as a son, by natural right, has always the prerogative 

of complaining about his own father and even reproach him about 

his acts, when these should not be in keeping with his parental duties, 

why should not I, a priest, and a member of the “Ecclesia 

Mater”, have the right and duty to maintain the teaching I received 

as irreformable doctrine, and therefore eternal, from the “Ecclesia 

Docens” in Her perpetual Magisterium? 

Is my “rational homage” to God 3, through Faith, perhaps to 

break away from that which once was taught to us, and replace it 

with that which is being taught today, in the name of “novelty” and 

“change”? 

And is the one “responsible”, the “accomplisher”, the “collaborator” 

of all that occurred, during and after the Vatican II, not perhaps 

he who sat at the “top” of the Hierarchy? 

Certainly never, in the past, was there such a disconcerting conflict, 

or a similar contradiction between the “truths” of the “past” 

and the other “alleged truths” of this “present”. 

Definitely, one needs to have lost all love for the Church and for 

souls – as well as lost common “good sense” – to have the nerve to 

propose the beatification of Paul VI! Indeed this is the last straw, 

3 Romans 12, 1; Pius IX, “Qui pluribus”, DB 1737. 

15

this desire to sanctify a Pope that openly failed his “duties” as 

Supreme Pontiff. Yes, for even a Pope, like any Catholic faithful, 

must indeed seek his own sanctification through the fulfillment of 

the duties related to his own station. 

Now, since in this historical-theological “Essay” I shall attempt 

to demonstrate that Paul VI did not fulfill his duty, I allowed myself 

to side with the “devil’s advocate”, the one who in every 

“process of beatification”, has the grave task of scrutinizing the 

life and writings of the candidate, just to dig up all those elements 

that might oppose his canonization! 

Even though a man becomes the Head of the Roman Catholic 

Church, and is called officially “Holy Father”, does not mean that 

his “alleged sanctity” has necessarily accompanied him into this office. 

In fact, of the 261 Popes who governed the Catholic Church, 

only 76 were ever “canonized”. The last of them being St. Pius X. 

It also must be known that, within the framework of the procedure 

necessary to establish “the heroic virtues” – an indispensable 

preliminary to beatification and canonization, rather, a “sine qua 

non” condition – is the verification of a certain number of posthumous 

miracles (that is, after death), attributed to the celestial intercession 

of the candidate. This, legal procedure must be executed, 

as the honor of the Church and the credibility of Her decisions toward 

everyone, believers and non-believers, are at stake. Unfortunately, 

some dispensations that have already been done against these 

canonical requirements have later opened the way to certain abuses! 

Now, even if this inexplicable push for a quick speedy solution 

for the “process for the beatification” of Paul VI, may not seem 

an obvious violence to Canon Law in order to rush to a positive solution, 

and even if a conclusion in his favor is reached and would be 

based exclusively on positive “depositions”, it is undeserved, illegal 

and dishonest, since Paul VI had betrayed Pius XII, with whom 

he collaborated; he had a dubious moral life 4; and finally his 

Pontificate had been marred by very grave deviations from the 

very “Depositum Fidei” and consequent errors. 

4 In order for the “Congregation for the Causes of the Saints” to recognize the 

“supernatural signs” of divine approval, such as “miracles”, obtained by “He” 

16

For this, what more could be done, to give a confident “judgment” 

of the real “thought” of Paul VI and, therefore, of his responsibility 

in the dreadful drama in which the Church is living, if 

not quoting his own “Addresses” to the Council and his Sunday 

“texts”, or of particular occasions, relating to his mandate as 

Supreme Pontiff of the Church of Christ? 

How many times had I noticed that Paul VI was against his Predecessors, 

despite the illusory quantity of mundane applauses he received! 

How many times had I considered that his “Great Design” 

which was opposed, however, to the Faith of Catholic Tradition, to 

the extent of recalling what St. Pius X had written: 

«This triumph of God on earth, both in individuals 

and in society, is but the return of the 

erring to God through Christ, and to Christ 

through the Church, which we announced as 

the program of our Pontificate» 5. 

whom the Congregation must recognize as “worthy” of the supreme honors, the 

Congregation must, in the first place, (and thus in Paul VI’s cases, too) form a 

clear idea as to the “reputation” of the “sanctity of life”, and then study the 

“heroicity of the virtues”. Now, that could neither come from the sole observation 

of the “facts”, nor from the exclusive account of the judgments, but it must 

also come from the people that have known him in life, or, at any rate, from reliable 

writings and “documents”. Now, since it is undisputable that Paul VI’s 

moral repute had not been so clear, it is a very serious moral obligation for the 

“Congregation For the Causes of the Saints” to ascertain the minutest detail. 

While a “beatification” would not imply the infallibility on the part of the Papal 

Magisterium, (and all the less would it confer any value upon the saying, 

“vox populi, vox Dei!”), it would not be honest, nonetheless, that one let the 

faithful believe it, distracting them from a just and dutiful notion one has to have 

of the divine truth, of the alleged “sanctity” of the elected, and of his alleged 

virtues. 

5 “Communium Rerum” of April 21, 1909. 

17

While studying the program of Paul VI, I saw the opposite, and 

that is: to lead to ruin the Kingdom of God through a “universal ecumenism” 

of “faith in Man” and of “cult of Man”, necessarily 

leading to a Deist Humanism in the service of the Masonic UN 

(United Nations). 

Now, this reminds me of that strange “confidence” Paul VI 

made to the pilgrims that Wednesday of April 12, 1967: 

18 

«But there is the strange phenomenon that is 

produced in us: wanting to comfort you, you 

communicate to us, in a certain sense, your peril, 

to which we wish to remedy; it comes to 

mind, with the consciousness of our inadequacy, 

the memory of the weaknesses of Simon, son 

of John, called and given the name Peter by 

Christ… the doubt… the fear… the temptation 

of bending Faith to modern mentality…». 

Unfortunately, this Church of Christ, under his Pontificate, indeed 

withered because of his innovative, reforming, and perturbing 

action. And he could see it for himself, so much so that, in disturbing 

terms, on December 7, 1968 – third anniversary of his 

proclamation of the “Cult of Man” – he had to recognize it: 

«The Church, today, is going through a moment 

of disquiet. Some indulge in self-criticism, 

one would say even self-destruction. It is like an 

acute and complex inner upheaval, which no 

one would have expected after the Council. One 

thought of a flourishing, a serene expansion of 

the concepts matured in the great conciliar assembly. 

There is also this aspect in the Church, 

there is the flourishing, but… for the most part 

one comes to notice the painful aspect. The 

Church is hit also by he who is part of it». 

And on June 29, 1972, his judgment, on what was happening 

in the Church, was even gloomier:

«Through some cracks the smoke of Satan has 

entered the temple of God: there is doubt, uncertainty, 

problematic, anxiety, confrontation. 

One does not trust the Church anymore; one 

trusts the first prophet that comes to talk to us 

from some newspapers or some social movement, 

and then rush after him and ask him if 

he held the formula of real life. And we fail to 

perceive, instead, that we are the masters of life 

already. Doubt has entered our conscience, and 

it has entered through windows that were supposed 

to be opened to the light instead…». 

«Even in the Church this state of uncertainty 

rules. One thought that after the Council there 

would come a shiny day for the history of the 

Church. A cloudy day came instead, a day of 

tempest, gloom, quest, and uncertainty. We 

preach ecumenism and drift farther and farther 

from the others. We attempt to dig abysses 

instead of filling them». 

«How has all this come about? We confide to 

you our thought: there has been the intervention 

of a hostile power. His name is the Devil; 

this mysterious being who is alluded to even in 

the letter of St. Peter. So many times, on the 

other hand, in the Gospel, on the very lips of 

Christ, there recurs the mention of this enemy 

of man. We believe in something supernatural 

(post-correction: “preternatural”!), coming into 

the world precisely to disturb, to suffocate anything 

of the Ecumenical Council, and to prevent 

that the Church would explode into the 

hymn of joy for having regained full consciousness 

of Herself» (!!). 

And so, Paul VI admitted to himself that the hand of Satan 

was in the conciliar and post-conciliar Church!.. But what did he 

do to save that Church of Christ from the dominance of Satan, of 

whom he had ascertained was the devastating reality? Nothing. Al- 

19

though it had been he himself that had thrown the barque of Peter 

into the tempest! 

Ought he not perhaps, instead, with decisive and vigorous gestures, 

refloat the boat from the banks in which he had thrown it? 

Nay, he apologized and washed his hands of it like a modern day Pilate, 

saying: 

20 

«The Pope does not believe he must follow another 

line other than that of the faith in Jesus 

Christ, whom holds His Church at heart more 

than anyone else. It shall be Him to stifle the 

tempest. How many times has the Master repeated: 

“Confidite in Deum. Creditis in Deum 

et in Me credite!” The Pope will be the first to 

execute this command of the Lord and to abandon 

himself without anguish or inopportune 

anxieties, to the mysterious play of the invisible 

but very certain assistance of Jesus to His 

Church» 6. 

Just something Pilate would say indeed! Three years earlier, 

when he threw everything up in the air in order to reform, change, 

and modify, did he not govern, and impose his ideas, creating all of 

the premises of that tempest on the Church, and thus relinquishing 

any right to fold his arms, to abandon the helm of the barque of Peter, 

demanding that God Himself miraculously rescue the calamity 

that he created? 

And instead, on June 21, 1972, Paul VI went back to repeating 

his false doctrine through which he sought to convince 

(whom?) that it was God’s job to rescue His Church: 

«In some of our personal notes, we find on this 

subject: perhaps, the Lord has called me to this 

service not because I have any flare for it, or 

6 December 7, 1968.

ecause I govern and rescue the Church from 

Her present difficulties, but because I suffer 

something for the Church and because it appears 

clearly that He, and not another, guides 

Her and saves Her». 

«We confide this sentiment surely not to make 

a public, thus conceited act of humility, but so 

that it be given to you, too, to enjoy of the tranquility 

that we derive from it, thinking that not 

our weak and inexperienced hand is at the helm 

of the boat of Peter, but the invisible, and yet 

strong and loving hand of Lord Jesus»! 

It is one more false and hypocritical witty remark, for God had 

not put him at the helm of Peter so that he would send the boat adrift 

with his “Reforms”, but so that he would govern it according to 

just Tradition, as had his Predecessors. 

And so, Paul VI should not have asked God for a miracle to save 

the Church again, but he should have, instead, humiliated himself 

and corrected his own “errors”, and fulfilled the work of salvation 

that his duty demanded. 

In one word, he had to quit praising and exalting the Man making 

himself a god, and think instead of the billions of men who still 

lay in the shadow of death and are awaiting the Revelation of the 

true God, Jesus Christ, the only one that sanctifies them and saves 

them. It is not this, perhaps, the first question of our Father: “sanctificetur 

Nomen Tuum”?.. And what are, then, these UN, these 

UNESCO and all these other International Institutions if not the 

work of Satan intent on destroying the Kingdom of Christ, His 

Church? Therefore, why that rushing to erect sand castles, forgetting 

that “ADVENIAT REGNUM TUUM”, which is the sole “International” 

that shall truly last for eternity? And how could he nurture 

dreams of international politics when his duty, willed by his vocation, 

could not be anything other than the relentless quest for the 

“Will of God, on earth as it is in heaven”? 

And had Paul VI not seen, what the Earth had become when 

God was thrown out by the French Revolution to be governed by 

“Freedom”, “Equality”, “Fraternity”, that is, upon the false 

21

“Great Principle” of 1789, which had taken the place of the “Law 

of God”, to submit it to the “Rights of Man”? Therefore, he was 

to be the faithful Judge of the “Honor of God” and of the “Rights 

of God” in order that the “Will of God” would be respected. Not 

so, instead! Perhaps, Paul VI had forgotten the command of Jesus: 

“But seek ye first the Kingdom of God, and His righteousness; 

and all these things shall be added unto you” 7; Paul VI, that is, 

had forgotten that the future belongs to God, to Jesus Christ, the Son 

of God, the Savior of the World, and that, at the end of times, the 

“Now shall the prince of this world be cast out” 8, to make room 

only for the “Church of God: One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and 

Roman”. 

With such a picture before me, how could I not be tempted to 

ask myself whether Paul VI had ever had a true vocation to the 

“priesthood”? Even the words I had read in the book, “Dialogues 

with Paul VI” by Jean Guitton - his greatest “friend” - had already 

caused me to reflect a lot: 

22 

«I had a intense calling to live in the world, to 

be a lay man, as they say today. I did not feel cut 

out for the clerical life that, at times, seemed to 

me static, closed, more interested in preserving 

than promoting, implying the renunciation of 

earthly tendencies in the measure of its condemnation 

of the world. 

Nonetheless, if one had these feelings, could one 

join priesthood in the Twentieth century? If I feel 

thus, it means that I am called to another state, 

where I will realize myself more harmoniously, 

for the common good of the Church». 9 

Grave “words”, which brought to mind those other ones, also 

written by his “friend”, in “Paul VI Secret”: 

7 Matthew 6, 33. 

8 John 12, 31. 

9 Jean Guitton, “Dialogues with Paul VI”, Mondadori, p. 285.

«I noticed how his thoughts were of a secular 

kind. With him, one was not in the presence of 

a “cleric”, but of a layman, promoted, unexpectedly, 

to the papacy!» 10. 

Paul VI, then, would have been a “layman” (not a “priest”, that 

is!). 

A phrase that had upset me, precisely because the “layman” 

Giovanni Battista Montini had become “Pope” Paul VI. 

*** 

Oh! May Mary’s Immaculate Heart grant me the “grace” of being 

able to transmit, in these pages, the “truth”, in order to remain 

faithful to the Faith in Jesus Christ, Our Lord, and transmitted 

by His Church, sole “custodian” of the “Depositum Fidei”! 

10 Jean Guitton, in “Paul VI Secret”, Edizioni Paoline, p. 21. 

Father Doctor Luigi Villa 

23

24 

Paul VI with his “friend” Jean Guitton.

Paul VI. 

25

26 

«If an angel from heaven 

is to proclaim a Gospel 

other than that I announced, 

let him be accursed! 

Not that there is another Gospel, 

but there are heretics 

purporting to distort the truth». 

(St. Paul, Letter to the Hebrews)

CHAPTER I 

HIS “NEW RELIGION” 

The pontificate of Paul VI has been, to us, a real catastrophe, for 

the reason that it was an authentic revolution that spun the Church 

on a 180 degrees about-turn, by means of a Council that supplanted 

the “Traditional Church” with a “New Church” that carried us 

back to Luther, to the riots of the Synod of Pistoia, which Pius VI 

condemned with the Bull “Auctorem Fidei” of 1794 1. 

With this book I shall attempt to demonstrate my assertions using 

of preference the “texts” of Monsignor Montini, Cardinal Montini, 

Pope Montini himself. Although forcibly limited in number, I 

believe the quotations will be nonetheless sufficient to give knowledge 

of his real “minds” both as “Pastor” and “Supreme Priest” 

of the Church of Christ. 

I shall attempt, therefore, to show, even though in a concise yet 

sufficient manner, what occurred in the Church during his years of 

government. 

It was an authentic “Revolution”, a sort of civil war, even though 

he differentiated its method and object, and the position it held. 

1 Pius VI, “Auctorem Fidei” Bull of August 28, 1794. 

27

A book, therefore, this book of mine, I place at the feet of the 

Immaculate, entreating her blessing over the author and its readers. 

28 

*** 

The roots of that “new ecclesial course” of his can be traced to 

the Subjectivism of Immanuel Kant and to the “Naturalism” of 

Jean Jacques Rousseau, which set in motion the revolt of man 

against God. 

But we must also evoke the great battle that was immediately 

started by the popes, since the publication of the Encyclical “Mirari 

Vos” of Gregory XVI (August 15, 1832 2), up until the times of the 

Vatican II. 

All of the Popes, therefore, had stood their ground. 

The “Syllabus” of December 8, 1864 3 listed the “errors” of 

Modernism: Pius IX never stopped fighting against “Catholic Liberalism” 

4; neither did Leo XIII with his encyclicals “Immortale 

Dei” and “Libertas Praestantissimum” 5. Pius X made, after that, 

an implacable analysis of “Doctrinal Modernism” with the encyclical 

“Pascendi” of 1907 6, and condemned Marc Sangnier’s political-religious 

utopia with the “Letter on the Sillon” of August 

25, 1910. Pius XI continued this battle, against the new modern 

“heresies”, with the encyclical “Quas Primas” of December 

11,1925, whose doctrine stands at the opposite of the current secularization; 

and subsequently with “Mortalium Animos” of January 

6, 1928, anticipating the condemnation of contemporary “Ecumenism”. 

Pius XII – whose teachings are all against the current 

subversion in the Church – with “Mystici Corporis” of June 29, 

1943, against the reformed ecclesiology; with “Divino Afflante 

Spiritu” of September 30, against Biblical Modernism; with “Mediator 

Dei” of November 20, 1947; with “Haurietis Aquas” of 

2 DB 1613-1617. 

3 DB 1688-1780. 

4 Pius IX, June 16, 1871; and also December 11, 1876. 

5 DB 1866. 

6 DB 2071-2110.

May 16, 1956; with “Humani Generis” of August 15, 1950, against 

dogmatic reformism, or “new Modernism”… 

And now, let us ask ourselves: Why was that which the Church 

had always strongly rejected and condemned, allowed even within 

the doctrinal riverbed by Vatican II? 

The answer to this question, I find in the opening address of 

Vatican II of October 11, 1962, hammered out and drafted by the 

Archbishop of Milan, Montini 7, but pronounced by John XXIII; an 

address that opened the doors 8 to all “novelties”. In fact, the “Message 

to the World” of October 20, voted by acclamation, was a 

signal of victory for the “new spirit”. Paul VI would later make of 

it a boisterous address: “Unusual case – said he – and yet an admirable 

one. One could say that the prophetical charisma of the 

Church had suddenly exploded” 9. 

And then came the “Pacem in Terris”, all inspired with the 

“Declaration on the Rights of Man”: rights of “freedom”, of 

“universal peace”, in accordance with the Masonic principles, 

and for these divulged and promptly exploited worldwide. 

But it was only the beginning of the dissolution. With Paul VI, 

in fact, subversion would open the floodgates and acquire a certain 

official legitimacy it did not have before. 

One has just to read all the “opening and closing Addresses” of 

Session II that Paul VI delivered, brimming with that “new spirit”, 

with that subtle oscillation of his thought that knew how to reconcile 

the extremes, that is, the contradictions, with skilful boldness 

10. 

And so came the “October Revolution” with the ballot of October 

30, 1963. But it will be the encyclical “Ecclesiam Suam” of 

August, 1964, (already hinted at in his address of September 29, 

7 Testimony of Monsignor Colombo published by Juffè, “Paul VI”, p. 129. 

8 During a reception given by Cardinal Suenens for non-Catholic guests, Michele 

Harper, the director of the British “Foundation Trust”, had to say, “John XXIII 

opened the window, but Paul VI opened the door!” 

9 Address of September 29, 1963; “Address to the Council”, Centurion Editions, 

n. 6, p. 118. 

10 Address of November 18, 1965. 

29

1963, which would become the “Blueprint” of his Pontificate) that 

Paul VI would manifest his intentions, even though persevering in 

his equivocal behavior, speaking of “vital Experience… and yet 

faith”; of “Renewal… and yet Tradition and spiritual perfection”; 

of “Dialogue… and yet preaching”… Words sweetened 

with clear vision, however, with his “new Religion”, which all his 

predecessors had rejected. 

And it would be the choice of the “Reformation”, of the “Optimism”, 

of the “Ecumenical Dialogue”, of the “Opening to the 

World”, that will produce, then, his most dangerous “schemes”, 

which he solemnly promulgated in spite of the not so few oppositions. 

But the opposition would be crushed, and subversion would gain 

the upper hand. 

30 

*** 

After these clear hints we can say that the subversion (of the 

Faith) in the universal Church is the inescapable consequence of the 

Pontificate of Paul VI, who used in fact Vatican II to achieve his liberal 

dreams of “renovation” and “revision”. 

Read: 

«… We wish to make our own the important 

words employed by the Council; those words 

which define its spirit, and, in a dynamical synthesis, 

form the spirit of all those who refer to 

it, be they within or without the Church. The 

word “NOVELTY”, simple, very dear to today’s 

men, is much utilized; it is theirs… That 

word… it was given to us as an order, as a program… 

It comes to us directly from the pages 

of the Holy Scripture: “For, behold (says the 

Lord), I create new heavens and a new earth”. 

St. Paul echoes these words of the prophet Isaiah 

11; then, the Apocalypse: “I am making 

everything new” 12. And Jesus, our Master, was 

not He, himself, an innovator? “You have heard 

that people were told in the past … but now I

tell you…” 13 – Repeated in the “Sermon on the 

Mount”. 

It is precisely thus that the Council has come to 

us. Two terms characterize it: “RENOVA- 

TION” and “REVISION”. We are particularly 

keen that this “spirit of renovation” – according 

to the expression of the Council – be understood 

and experienced by everyone. It responds to the 

characteristic of our time, wholly engaged in an 

enormous and rapid transformation, and generating 

novelties in every sector of modern life. 

In fact, one cannot shy away from this spontaneous 

reflection: if the whole world is changing, 

will not religion change as well? Between the 

reality of life and Christianity, Catholicism especially, 

is not there reciprocal disagreement, 

indifference, misunderstanding, and hostility? 

The former is leaping forward; the latter would 

not move. How could they go along? How could 

Christianity claim to have, today, any influence 

upon life? 

And it is for this reason that the Church has 

undertaken some reforms, especially after the 

Council. The Episcopate is about to promote 

the “renovation” that corresponds to our present 

needs; Religious Orders are reforming 

their Statutes; Catholic laity is qualified and 

found its role within the life of the Church; 

Liturgy is proceeding with a reform in which 

anyone knows the extension and importance; 

Christian education reviews the methods of its 

pedagogy; all the canonical legislations are 

about to be revised. 

11 II Corinthians 5, 17. 

12 21, 5. 

13 Matthew 5. 

31

32 

And how many other consoling and promising 

novelties we shall see appearing in the Church! 

They attest to Her new vitality, which shows 

that the Holy Spirit animates Her continually, 

even in these years so crucial to religion. The 

development of ecumenism, guided by Faith 

and Charity, itself says what progress, almost 

unforeseeable, has been achieved during the 

course and life of the Church. The Church 

looks at the future with Her heart brimming 

with hope, brimming with fresh expectation in 

love… We can say… of the Council: It marks 

the onset of a new era, of which no one can deny 

the new aspects that We have indicated to 

you» 14. 

Well, this is some “new era”, which brought us so many “new 

aspects”, but sorry ones indeed, unintelligent, destructors of an 

entire “Christian Civilization”, built in so many centuries of martyrdom 

and constructive work, spiritual and social alike! 

And, unfortunately, of all this the most real and grave responsibilities 

must indeed be attributed to HE who never should have 

done it. And the “evidence” is incontrovertible for it is derived from 

official “data”, present in all of his “opening” and “continuing” 

Papal Addresses, such as the “ECCLESIAM SUAM” of August 

1964, in the imminence of the beginning of the discussion upon the 

“LUMEN GENTIUM”, concluded on November 21, 1965, and 

with the ENDING of Vatican II, in particular with his ADDRESS 

of December 7, 1965, (the most disconcerting of all his previous 

ones), and with the CONSTITUTIONS and the CONCILIAR DE- 

CREES, strictly intended. 

Now, “scripta manent!” and “QUOD FACTUM EST, infectum 

fieri nequit!” It is this, therefore, the true identity of a Vatican 

II alleged as only entirely “pastoral”, but also filled with ambigu- 

14 General Audience of July 2, 1969.

ity, reticence, and surprise attacks, which demonstrate that the “EC- 

CLESIAM SUAM”, far from representing a certain support for 

those theses, has been used to erect a building on the sand. 

One should pause and reflect a moment upon the consequence of 

those FOUR “CONDITIONS”, indeed dictated by Paul VI in the 

“Ecclesiam Suam” for a fecund dialogue: 

1) The CLARITY: which should consist in a PERFECT BAL- 

ANCE of position between the two dialoguing parties. (But didn’t 

Jesus send out HIS APOSTLES to PREACH? And thus, NOT TO 

DIALOGUE!). Such a “stance” of Vatican II, therefore, is “UN- 

HEARD OF” in the entire history of the Church, although She had 

to confront the grave aberrations of PAGANISM, of POLYTHE- 

ISM, of GREEK PHILOSOPHY, of SOPHISMS of all kinds. But 

the Church never dreamt of adopting that impossible principle of a 

parity of “dialogue” between Herself and non-believers. 

2) The MEEKNESS: one sided, however, and with the exclusion 

of the ANNOUNCEMENT – always mandatory – and even 

with the exclusion of “threats of damnation” for those whom 

“non crediderit” (“will not believe”)! Now, even this “new style 

of evangelization” is a true BETRAYAL of the MANDATE of 

CHRIST to the APOSTLES: “Euntes docete” (“Go Teach”). Especially 

now that every DEFENSE of the FAITH has been dismantled. 

3) The TRUST: with only two “human” aspects of the “dialogue”; 

that is: trust in the INTRINSIC VIRTUE of the WORD 

(and not even that it is about the REVEALED WORD, is specified!), 

and trust in the approach of those who welcome it (with no 

hint at the action, nonetheless necessary, supernatural, of prayer 

and Grace). 

4) The PRUDENCE: which, however, here is completely wanting, 

precisely because of those three preceding conditions indicated 

in the “Ecclesiam Suam”! 

Again: that invitation to exercise the three superior faculties of 

man, with regard to clarity and dialogue, is surely not an exhortation 

to encourage an apostolic keenness, nor to revise the form of 

33

the language to be used. However, this idea that the Church up until 

1964, that is, prior to the advent of Vatican II, had wasted time, 

using radically wrong methods, hence now, She must reverse everything 

She has done and bring Herself up to date, had certainly 

been neither a polite nor an edifying expression on the part of Vatican 

II toward the Church of Tradition. 

Furthermore, they call for the Church to employ, today, a technique 

of more perfect “dialogue”, such as that which has been invented 

now. Hence one should no longer imitate, for example, the 

talk of a St. Stephen, the Protomartyr, with those of the Synagoga 

Libertinorum, who ended up with stoning him to death just because 

he had the imprudence of not remaining silent about delicate 

truths that were unpalatable to those devils. And so one should 

no longer learn from the Apologist Saints whom, like St. Augustine, 

fought against all the heretics of their time. 

In fact, the four points – quoted above – of the “Ecclesiam 

Suam”, represent a pastoral position diametrically opposite to that 

of the Apostle Paul, who pointed out: «… et sermo meus, et praedicatio 

mea NON IN PERSUASIBILIBUS HUMANAE SAPIEN- 

TIAE VERBIS [“and my speech and my preaching not in persuasive 

words of human wisdom,”] (a “method” willed, instead, 

by the “Ecclesiam Suam”!)... UT FIDES VESTRA NON SIT IN 

SAPIENTIA HOMINUM, SED IN VIRTUDE DEI» 15 [“that 

your faith be not in the wisdom of men, but in the strength of 

God.”]. 

The “dialogue” of the “Ecclesiam Suam”, on the contrary, after 

twenty centuries of preached Christianity (not “dialogued”!), 

must rest exclusively upon “human means”, excluding the fundamental 

necessity of the Divine Grace in order that the Revealed 

Word be fruitful. Since Vatican II, not anymore! It (the Revealed 

Word) must be presented and dialogued as a reasoning of man, 

from man to man. To Paul VI, that is, in the “dialogue” must place 

a value on the authority, or the personal competence and ability of 

the interlocutor rather than the authority of the REVEALING GOD. 

And, unfortunately, this “doctrine” of the “Ecclesiam Suam” is 

15 I Corinthians 2, 2, 4. 

34

latent in all the Documents, Decrees, and Constitutions of Vatican 

II, in which man is made the “center of everything”. 

As Paul VI, having said it in person, no one could ever accuse 

us of having missed the tenor of that “character”, unsettling, 

paradoxical, and subversive to the Supreme Magisterium 

of twenty centuries, which put Man in the place of God. 

Do read, therefore, this other disquieting confession of Paul 

VI’s, too: 

«Nunc vero animadvertere juvat, Ecclesiam per 

suum magisterium, quamvis nullum doctrinae caput 

sententiis dogmaticis extradinariis definire 

voluerit… ad cuius normam homines hodie 

tenentur (?!) conscientiam suam, suamque agendi 

rationem conformare…». 

As one can see, here too Paul VI expressly declared that Vatican 

II did not intend to teach, through dogmatic definitions, any Chapter 

of doctrine, and therefore, necessarily, Vatican II is in no part 

covered by infallibility, since infallibility is tied only to the 

“truths” taught by the Universal Ordinary Magisterium as revealed 

– and, therefore, to be believed “de fide divina”, aut 

“catholica” – by the Solemn Magisterium and by the Ecumenical 

Councils, or even by the Supreme Pontiff, as regards dogmatic 

definitions. 

Therefore, by avoiding to provide dogmatic definitions, Paul VI 

could also utter these other incredible enormities, such as are read 

shortly after that declaration in the same address: 

«Aliud est etiam, quod consideratione dignum 

putamus: huiusmodi divitem doctrinae copiam, 

eo unice spectare, ut homini serviat» (!!). 

The English version, perhaps, will highlight in a higher disquieting 

degree the enormity of that declaration: «… All this doctrinal 

wealth points but to one direction: to serve man». 

Disconcerting indeed! For these are the words of a “Pope” 

whom, to further reinforce us in his thought, continues: 

35

36 

«The Church has, so to say, declared Herself 

the SERVANT OF HUMANITY»… (Whereas 

Our Lady had declared Herself “ANCILLA DO- 

MINI”)… 

He then continues: 

«Servant of Humanity, at the very time when 

Her ECCLESIASTICAL MAGISTERIUM and 

Her PASTORAL GOVERNMENT have, by 

reason of the council’s solemnity, assumed 

greater splendor and vigor. The idea of MIN- 

ISTRY has been central… Has all this and all 

that we might say upon the HUMAN VALUE 

(?!) of the Council, perhaps diverted the attention 

of the CHURCH IN COUNCIL toward the 

ANTHROPOCENTRIC direction of modern 

culture? DIVERTED, NO; DIRECTED, YES». 

Extremely clear yet bewildering words, for they are the violation 

of the principle of identity (or of contradiction). 

In both one and the other, in fact, the “center” is always Man. 

The remainder of the Address, then, intensifies his position even 

more: 

«Any careful observer of THE COUNCIL’S 

PREVAILING INTEREST FOR HUMAN 

AND TEMPORAL VALUES (?!) Cannot deny 

that such (PREVAILING) INTEREST derives 

from the PASTORAL CHARACTER the 

COUNCIL has made ITS PROGRAM…». 

Now, this reference, often recurring in the Conciliar and post- 

Conciliar Documents, to the pastoral character of Vatican II, creates 

a specious ambiguity, as it tends to distinguish itself from all 

the previous Ecumenical Councils, precisely for its pastoral character, 

almost insinuating, however, the idea that the other Councils 

had never paid heed to the “pastoral reasons” and, therefore, 

“practical”, as if they had limited themselves to chasing butterflies

under the Arch of Titus, or hanging out in the stratosphere of theological 

abstractions. However, it is like bestowing an unjustifiable 

credential of “idiot” on the Fathers of the other Councils! 

To us, instead, it throws rather a shadow of suspicion upon the 

doctrinal validity of Vatican II, so bristling with sophisms, traps, 

heavy pages, with a twisted language, insidious, reticent, ambiguous. 

For instance its dwelling at the core of the issues without discerning 

their bottom can be seen, in the answer given by some Fathers, 

at the end of the Dogmatic Constitutions “Lumen Gentium” 

and “Dei Verbum”. It will suffice to read that answer, on 

page 254, marginal number 446, and page 522 and 523, at bottom, 

just beneath Paul VI’s signature, of the “Edizioni Dehoniane”, at the 

words: “RATIONE HABITA moris CONCILIARIS, ac praesentis 

CONCILII (?!)... FINIS PASTORALIS... 

(Reason having been established of the will of the Council and 

of the present council…the purpose is pastoral…) 

It will be seen, Before those declarations of Paul VI in his Address 

of December 7, 1965, closing Vatican II… and those of the 

“DECLARATIO DE LIBERTATE RELIGIOSA”, before the 

words of marginal number 1044 and 1045, upon the “INVIO- 

LABLE RIGHTS OF THE HUMAN PERSON”, (The only 

“Rights” named in those numbers, ignoring GOD’s altogether, although 

PRIMARY and CONDITIONING of Man’s Rights), will 

be clearly seen both the lack of preparation and the swindle, “in 

contemptum” of the whole Supreme Magisterium of the Dogmatic 

Tradition of the Church antecedent to Vatican II. 

Therefore, the entire chapter of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Thessalonians 

will always have contemporary meaning: “Non credendum 

seductoribus... et tunc revelabitur ille iniquus, quem Dominus 

Jesus interficiet Spiritu oris sui et destruet illustratione adventus 

sui eum... Ideo mittet illis Deus operationem erroris ut 

CREDANT MENDACIO, UT JUDICENTUR INIQUITATI” 16. 

All that is left to do is to confide in the Lord, repeating with the 

Apostle, “Scio enim CUI CREDIDI, et CERTUS SUM quia 

potens est DEPOSITUM MEUM SERVARE IN ILLUM 

16 “One is not to believe in the seducers... And then shall that Wicked be revealed, 

37

DIEM” 17. [For I know whom I have believed and I am certain that 

he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him, against 

that day. – 2 Tim. 1:12] 

38 

*** 

At this juncture, one finds oneself confronted with a “New 

Christianity”, that of Paul VI, who has endeavored to render Christianity 

more “present”, more interesting for the man of today. 

But his was a wrong course. The religion founded by Our Lord 

Jesus Christ is essentially supernatural. According to human wisdom, 

however, His teachings, transmitted to us by the Holy Gospels, 

are absolutely incomprehensible and unacceptable. A God who 

makes Himself “Man”, who let them insult Him, scorn Him all the 

way to the ignominy of the Cross… A Master beatifying sacrifice 

and suffering and preaching the annihilation of His own self is certainly 

not loved by the world for His doctrine, but He is loved only 

through Faith, with a vision, that is, supernatural, which transcends 

completely the human vision of things. 

Paul VI and Vatican II, instead, pushed things in a manner that, by 

degrees, God has almost disappeared to make room for man. In this 

picture, Christianity has become “religion of man”, and although the 

name of God remains and the “religion” may be still called “Christian”, 

in reality, however, it is nourished only by the second Commandment, 

filled with “let us love one another”, with “enough 

with religious war”, with “let nothing stand in our way anymore”… 

in order to embrace only those things that might unite us. 

But this is in radical opposition with the Gospel that teaches, instead, 

the “supremacy of God” and of His Love. Therefore, if we 

are to love and serve our neighbor, too, we are to do it because God 

whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with 

the brightness of his coming... And for this cause God shall send them strong 

delusion, that they should believe a lie… That they all might be damned who believed 

not the truth” (II Thessalonians 2, 8-12). 

17 II Timothy 1, 12.

the Father loves him in the person of His Own Son Jesus Christ, and 

thus without the love of God, even the love of man has no sense 

anymore 18. 

Sure, Paul VI could not deny openly this dogmatic truth, but he 

did go, however, as far as saying that love is “due to every man for 

his own quality” 19. 

However, from the reading of his “texts” his obsession, his primary 

anxiety is only, or almost, at the level of man. 

In fact, he expresses himself thus: 

«This Council… in conclusion, will give us a 

simple, new and solemn teaching to love man in 

order to love God» 20. 

«…To know God, one has to know man» 21. 

«All these doctrinal riches (of the Council) aim 

at one and one thing only: to serve man» 22. 

«We, too, no more than any other, we have the 

cult of man» 23. 

«The religion of the God who became man has 

met the religion (for such it is!) of man who 

makes himself God. And what happened? Was 

there a clash, a battle, a condemnation? There 

could have been, but there was none» 24! 

And so forth, as in this other “passage” of his of March 27, 

1960, at a conference: 

«Shan’t modern man, one day, as his scientific 

studies progress and discover realities hidden 

18 “La Civiltà Cattolica” magazine of March 1974. 

19 Peace Day Message, November 14, 1970. 

20 Council’s Closing Address, December 7,1965. 

21 Idem. 

22 Idem. 

23 Idem. 

24 Idem. 

39

40 

behind the mute face of matter, come to prick 

up his ear to the wonderful voice of the Spirit 

palpitating in it? Shan’t it be the religion of tomorrow? 

Einstein himself perceived the spontaneity 

of a religion of today… Isn’t the work 

already in progress along the trajectory leading 

straight up to religion?» 25. 

Astonishing indeed! Montini, here, preaches a “religion” 

wherein the supernatural and Revelation are excluded! One 

could say that, to him, the religion of tomorrow would no longer be 

that of Jesus Christ, that which is communicated to man through the 

Grace of the Faith, of the Holy Gospel, of the Passion of Christ, of 

the Holy Eucharist… No! That other “religion” of his shall be the 

“religion of the universe”, a result, that is, of the “straight trajectory” 

traced by work and scientific research. A “dream”, however, 

which has nothing to do with the Christian Faith, for Christianity 

is Divine religion, flowing out from the Sapience of God, and 

thus contrary to the sapience and preferences of the man fallen with 

the original sin. 

Christianity, therefore, is opposed to “human development” in 

the sense intended by the world, for Christianity places itself on a 

supernatural level, where the development is certainly real, but altogether 

different. The Saints, in fact – shining examples of Christianity 

– have never attempted to “realize themselves”, but rather 

to mortify themselves and renounce everything for the love of God. 

It is the Christian asceticism that realizes us in a wonderful spiritual 

blossoming in which the true freedom of the sons of God is to be 

found. 

Instead, the humanism of Paul VI (which he often confuses, in 

his writings and speeches, as if spirit and matter might form one 

sole thing), places itself at the level of the exclusive “human reason”, 

coupled with a “natural conscience”, as a norm, whereas, 

on the contrary, Christianity places itself at the level of the Faith, 

taking the Holy Gospel as “norm” to follow in the course of life. 

25 “Documentation Catholique” n. 133, June 19, 1960.

The great mistake, therefore, of Paul VI was that of being rather 

a humanist than a Christian, putting the Gospel at the service of his 

humanist “dream”, identical to the ideal of Freemasonry, whose 

ideal of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, would be achieved through 

the development of the universal conscience. 

The whole of the writings and speeches of Paul VI, in fact, show, 

with sad clearness, that it was man, rather than God, the center 

of his cares… That all was thought out, judged, and directed according 

to the service of man. 

Paul VI’s Christianity unpinned from the Cross. Namely: 

– a Christ considered a “liberator”, not as much from sin, as 

from suffering, from humiliation, from enslavement; 

– a Gospel mixed up with the “Charter of Man’s Rights”, and 

placed at the service of “social justice”; 

– the “Rights of God” neglected, to the advantage of the exaltation 

of the “Rights” and preferences of man; 

– an evangelization reduced to a “dialogue”, not to convert, 

and resting upon “human means” rather than upon supernatural 

means… 

In brief: Paul VI, more than Christ and His Gospel, has served, 

and had man served, substituting: 

– the supremacy of the supernatural with the supremacy of 

the natural, of the temporal, of man; 

– the supremacy of the “Law of God” with the supremacy of 

the conscience; 

– the supremacy of the “Kingdom of God” and of the “eternal 

life” with the supremacy of the world, of history, of his chimera 

toward achieving a sort of paradise on earth. 

After which, one could accuse Paul VI of giving man a “cult” 

that should not be given him. Man must be certainly loved, but not 

of a disorderly love, that is, a love not regulated by the love of God 

or independent of His love. 

The “cult of man”, instead, leads to the myth of the sameness 

among all men, hence the leveling of the classes (with all the violence 

this brings about), hence “universal democracy” (another 

utopia dear to Paul VI), which is but Masonic universalism. 

Let us further quote, therefore, some other “text” that illustrates 

41

this “cult of man” in Paul VI, so evident in his humanism. 

In his “Address” to the Last Public Session of Vatican II, Paul 

VI made a sort of “profession of faith” that sounds unprecedented. 

That his speaking of man, whom must be understood, respected, and 

admired, ended up in an authentic “cult of man”! 

42 

«The Church of the Council – said he – has 

much focused on man, man as he really is today: 

living man, man all wrapped up in himself, 

man who makes himself not only the center 

of his every interest but dares to claim that 

he is the principle and explanation of all reality… 

Secular humanism, revealing itself in its 

horrible anti-clerical reality has, in a certain 

sense, defied the Council. The religion of the 

God who became man has met the religion of 

man who makes himself God. And what happened? 

Was there a clash, a battle, a condemnation? 

There could have been, but there was 

none. The old story of the Samaritan has been 

the model of the spirituality of the Council. A 

feeling of boundless sympathy has permeated 

the whole of it. The attention of our Council has 

been absorbed by the discovery of human 

needs. But we call upon those who term themselves 

modern humanists, and who have renounced 

the transcendent value of the highest 

realities, to give the Council credit at least for 

one quality and to recognize our own new type 

of humanism: we, too, in fact, we more than 

any others, honor mankind; WE HAVE THE 

CULT OF MAN!» 26. 

26 Council’s Closing Address, December 7, 1965.

But already on September 14, 1965, Paul VI was asking himself: 

«Could the Church, could we but look upon 

him (man) and love him?…» «The Council is a 

solemn act of love toward humanity. May 

Christ assist us so that it be truly so». 

Now, speaking in such a way has a flavor of abdication, of servility 

in front of atheism in order to obtain its favors. But he, Paul 

VI, calls it “a merit”, whereas, on the contrary, it is an abandonment, 

a deformation of Charity. Instead of condemning the insane 

pride of man, who exalts himself and is no longer willing to submit 

to God, Paul VI fondles him, wants to appear likable to him, affirming 

that he and his peers have a “cult of man” that surpasses 

even that of atheistic humanism! 

It was then this very form of idolatry toward man that caused 

“Religious Freedom” to be proclaimed as a fundamental and absolute 

right of man! It was then this very false love for man that 

gave life to the “Gaudium et Spes”, or “The Church in the World 

of Today”, “which will represent the crowning of the work of the 

Council”, and which Paul VI will proclaim has inspired the religion 

of Man, “the center and crown of the world” 27. 

In his humanist delirium, he further added: 

«Another point we must stress is this: all this 

rich teaching (of the Council) is channeled in 

one direction, the SERVICE OF MANKIND, of 

every condition, in every weakness and 

need…». 

And he continued: 

«Has all this, and everything else that we might 

say about the human value of the Council, perhaps 

diverted the attention of the Church in the 

27 “Gaudium et Spes”, n. 12. 

43

44 

Council toward the trend of modern culture, 

centered on humanity? Nay, the Church stood 

Her course, but She turned to man… The modern 

mind, accustomed to assess everything in 

terms of usefulness, will readily admit that the 

Council’s value is great if only because everything 

has been referred to human usefulness. 

Hence no one should ever say that a religion 

like the Catholic religion is without use, seeing 

that when it has its greatest self-awareness and 

effectiveness, as it has in the Council, it declares 

itself entirely on the side of man and in his service…» 

28. 

And on July 13, 1969, he said 

«Man reveals himself to us a giant. He reveals 

himself to us divine not in himself, but in his 

origin and in his destiny. Honor to man, honor 

to his dignity, to his spirit, to his life». 

Yes, for man is the end … 

«The first step toward the final and transcendent 

goal which is the basis and cause of every 

love… Our humanism becomes Christianity, 

our Christianity becomes centered on God; in 

such sort that we may say, to put it differently: 

a knowledge of man is a prerequisite for a 

knowledge of God». 

Disconcerting indeed! In his utterance, gone are the Cross of 

Christ, the baptismal Grace, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, the mysteries 

of the Faith, treasures of Truth, of Life, of Virtue of the Sole 

Catholic Church. 

28 Council’s Closing Address, December 7, 1965.

We are in front of a sort of idolatry of man, such as Christ Himself 

denounced when He responded to Satan that was tempting Him: 

“Vade retro, Satana! For it is written, thou shalt worship the 

Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve” 29. 

Now, this brings to mind another address of St. Pius X’s, in his 

first encyclical: 

«Such, in truth, is the audacity and the wrath 

employed everywhere in persecuting religion, 

in combating the dogmas of the Faith, in 

brazen effort to uproot and destroy all relations 

between man and the Divinity! While, on the 

other hand, and this according to the same 

Apostle (St. Paul), it is the distinguishing mark 

of Antichrist, man has with infinite temerity 

put himself in the place of God, raising himself 

above all that is called God; in such wise that 

although he cannot utterly extinguish in himself 

all knowledge of God, he has despised 

God’s majesty and, as it were, made of the universe 

a temple wherein he himself is to be 

adored… Hence it follows that to restore all 

things in Christ and to lead men back to submission 

to God is one and the same aim. But if 

our desire to obtain this is to be fulfilled, we 

must use every means and exert all our energy 

to bring about the utter disappearance of the 

enormous and detestable wickedness, so characteristic 

of our time: the substitution of man 

for God» 30. 

This truly papal line, however, stands opposite to that liberal 

Paul VI, whom, at Sidney, on December 2, 1970, stated to the press: 

29 Matthew 4, 10. 

30 “E Supremi Apostolatus” of October, 4 1903. 

45

46 

«We have trust in man. We believe in the store 

of goodness in everyone’s heart. We know the 

motives of justice, truth, renewal, progress and 

brotherhood that lie at the root of so many 

wonderful undertakings, and even of so many 

protests and, unfortunately, of violence at 

times… Sow the seed of a true ideal… an ideal 

to make him grow to his true stature as one created 

in the likeness of God, an ideal to drive 

him to surpass himself unceasingly, in order to 

build jointly the brotherly city to which all aspire 

and to which all have a right. The Catholic 

Church, especially since the fresh impulse of 

“revision” that sprang from the Council, is going 

out to encounter this very man whose service 

is your ambition». 

Sure, Paul VI, in his utterance, had forgotten what is written in 

the Holy Scripture: “Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and 

maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the 

LORD” 31. And also: “For without Me, you can do nothing” 32. 

Paul VI, instead, at the Angelus of February 7, 1971, on the occasion 

of a space mission, composed a “Hymn to the Glory of 

Man”, as if to counter the Hymn to “Christ King of the Centuries”: 

31 Jeremiah 17, 5. 

32 John 15, 5. 

«Honor to man; honor to thought; Honor to 

science; Honor to the synthesis of scientific and 

organizing ability of man who unlike other animals, 

knows how to give his spirit and his 

manual dexterity these instruments of conquest. 

Honor to man, King of the Earth, and today 

Prince of heaven. Honor to the living being

that we are, wherein is reflected the image of 

God and which, in its dominion over things, 

obeys the biblical command: increase and 

rule». 

Here, too, the error of Paul VI is that of the supremacy of the human, 

his giving value to all that is humanly appreciable, which is of 

man, “center and crown”, whereas the Church of Christ is always 

been, yes, at the service of man, to the extent of heroism, even, but 

this, however, always in view of the service to God and of the salvation 

of the souls. Therefore, Paul VI’s anthropocentrism, his orientation 

upon Man, rather than upon God, brings to mind those insane 

words of the Pastoral Constitution “Gaudium et Spes” 33, 

which says: “All things on earth should be related to man as 

their center and crown”; words that certainly do not echo the 

“Charitas Christi urget nos!” (The Charity of Christ drives us!). 

Regrettably, it seems more than evident that in Paul VI man 

comes before God, even though, among his citations of the Gospels, 

he would often repeat the following one: “Inasmuch as ye have 

done unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done 

unto me” 34. By all means! But what one does to one’s neighbor, has 

to be of a quality acceptable to Jesus. And this cannot definitely be 

the fondling of man’s pride, boasting of his false science, encouraging 

his rejection of any dependence on God. He should never have 

stopped thinking that his vocation required him to preach, at all 

times, the supremacy of the supernatural and the Christian view 

condensed in the “Beatitudes”: “Blessed are the poor in spirit… 

the meek… the peacemakers… they that suffer persecution for 

justice’s sake…” 35. 

He had no business, therefore, in boasting about his being an 

“expert in humanity”, as he qualified himself at the UN (October 

4, 1965)… and to say: 


34 Matthew 25, 40. 

35 Matthew 5, 3-5-9-10. 

47

48 

«The mission of Christianity is a mission of 

friendship among the peoples of the earth, a 

mission of understanding, of encouragement, of 

promotion, of elevation, and, let us say it one 

more time, a mission of salutations» 36. 

A “vision”, however, which is far from that of the Gospel, and 

certainly does not reflect the Words of Jesus: “Think not that I am 

come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a 

sword” 37… and for this he was always a “sign of contradiction”. 

But Paul VI manages to aggravate his own utterance: 

«Man… aware of terrible doubts… We have to 

convey to him a message that We believe liberating. 

AND WE, WE believe all the more we 

are authorized to propose it to him because we 

are wholly human. It is the message of MAN to 

man» 38. 

Here is the “New Gospel”, all human, of Paul VI! 

Even speaking about his “missionary travels”, he will confess: 

«We ourselves have no other intention on our 

various journeys to all points of the globe. 

What we try to do with all our poor strength is 

to work for the bettering of men, with the aim 

of bringing about the reign of peace and the triumph 

of justice, without which no peace is enduring» 

39. 

36 At Bethlehem, January 6, 1964. 

37 Matthew 10, 34. 

38 At Bethlehem, January 6, 1964. 

39 In Indonesia, December 3, 1970.

Now, these are his own words: “no other intention” than that of 

working for human causes; therefore, not as a custodian of the 

Faith, but as an “expert humanist”! his faith, that is, is in man. 

That is why he regarded Christianity as mere “humanism”. 

For that reason, after his “Ecclesiam Suam”, the Church must 

not convert anymore, because “The Church makes Herself dialogue…” 

a “dialogue” that characterized His Pontificate 40; a “dialogue” 

that would no longer consist in preaching the Gospel, but 

rather in working for a peaceful coexistence between good and evil, 

between true and false. 

«… A great undertaking, well worthy of reuniting 

every man of good will into an immense and 

irresistible conspiracy toward this integral development 

of man and this concurrent development 

of humanity, to which we have dared exhort 

him in the name of a “integral humanism”, 

in our encyclical “Populorum Progressio”» 

41. 

Poor Jesus!.. This “Vicar on Earth” of Yours must have completely 

forgotten Your command: “But seek ye first the Kingdom 

of God, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be 

added unto you” 42. 

But here is another proof of the basis upon which Paul VI considered 

that peace could be established: 

«Let us venture to use a word, which may itself 

appear ambiguous, but which, given the 

thought its deep significance demands, is ever 

splendid and supreme. The world is ‘love’: love 

for man, as the highest principle of the terres- 

40 “Ecclesiam Suam”, n. 60. 

41 Address for the 25th anniversary of the UN, October 4, 1970. 

42 Matthew 6, 33. 

49

50 

trial order… Peace is a product of love: true 

love, human love… If we want peace, we must 

recognize the necessity of building it upon foundations 

more substantial… True peace must be 

founded upon justice, upon a sense of the intangible 

dignity of man, upon the recognition of 

an abiding and happy equality between men, 

upon the basic principle of human brotherhood, 

that is, of the respect and love due to each 

man, because he is man» 43. 

So, the “more solid basis” to achieve the peace, is not the respect 

of God and of His laws, but “the sense of an intangible human 

dignity”, the “recognition of an abiding and happy equality 

between men”, based “upon the basic principle of human 

brotherhood…”. And yet, Jesus had said: “Without Me, you can 

do nothing” 44. 

But Paul VI, instead, speaking at FAO (Rome based UN Food 

and Agriculture Organization), had this to say: 

«As for you, it is man you succor, it is man you 

sustain. How can you act against him, when 

you exist for him and could not succeed but 

with him?» 45. 

Even this witty remark of Paul VI’s seems another sort of “profession 

of faith” in man, a repetition of what he had said already 

at the UN: 

«We bring to this organization the suffrage of 

our recent Predecessors, that of the entire 

Catholic Episcopate, and our own, convinced as 

we are that this organization represents the 

43 Peace Day Message, November 14, 1970. 

44 John 15, 5. 

45 To FAO, November 16, 1970.

obligatory path of modern civilization and of 

world peace… The peoples of the earth turn to 

the United Nations as the last hope of concord 

and peace. We presume to present here, together 

with our own, their tribute to honor and of 

hope» 46. 

This is the essence of the thought of Paul VI. He believes in the 

power of man, even atheistic man, anti-Christian, and Satanic, as is 

the United Nations. He believes in him more than he believes in the 

supernatural means: Grace, Prayer, Sacraments… The great hope, 

to him, is man! He will say it also on January 27, 1974, on the occasion 

of the canonization of a Nun, Thérèse de Jésus Jornet Edibards: 

«… A Saint for our times; that which characterizes, 

indeed, our times, is the humanitarian 

aspect, social, and organized, marked by the 

cult for man». 

And at Bogotá, before a crowd of laborers waving revolutionary 

banners, he said: 

«You are a sign. You are an image. You are a 

mystery of the presence of the Christ (!!). The 

Sacrament of the Eucharist offers us His hidden 

Presence, live and real; but You too are a 

sacrament, a sacred image of the Lord in our 

midst» 47. 

Montinian rambling speeches! As in this other euphoric lyricism 

of his, commenting on the trip from the earth to the moon. It is another 

chant from which transpires all of his “cult of man”: 

46 Address to the UN, October 4, 1965. 

47 At Bogotà - D.C. September 1968, n. 1524-1544. 

51

52 

«Honor to man; honor to thought; honor to science; 

honor to human daring; honor to the synthesis 

of scientific activity and organizing ability 

of man who unlike other animals (?!) knows 

how to give his spirit and his manual dexterity 

these instruments of conquest; honor to man, 

king of the earth and, today, prince of heaven…» 

48. 

But we, instead, shall continue to say: “Now to the King eternal, 

immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and 

glory forever and ever. Amen” 49. 

48 Angelus of February 7, 1971. 

49 I Timothy 1, 17.

“RELIGION” OF MASONRY 

– «Freemasonry informs us that there is only one true religion and 

therefore a natural one: the cult of humanity». (“The World 

Freemasonry”, gen. mag. 1870). 

– «The cornerstone of any system of Freemasonry is opposed to 

the ascetic and transcendental feeling which carries men beyond 

the present life and grants that one considers himself as pilgrim 

on earth. Until this non-system is destroyed by the hammer of 

Masonry, we will have a society of poor deluded creatures, who 

have sacrificed everything to achieve happiness in a future existence». 

(The Mason, Mauro Macchi in “Masonic Review”, February 

16, 1874). 

– «Why tell the man well - according to Masonic principles - his 

conduct should not seek out or control over his reason (...); 

should not envisage the moral law as a command from Above, 

from an other-worldly existence, supernatural, which we must 

bow to. (...). Eliminate the supernatural, morality is Masonic 

and purely naturalistic, human rights and human duties, goals 

and human struggles are related to earth...». (The Mason, 

Thomas Ventura). 

– «The Masonic morality is neither Christian nor Jewish, or Mohammedan. 

Freemasonry proclaims certain principles on which 

moralists of all countries and all religions agree and strive to 

harmonize these views that are sometimes contradictory but only 

in appearance». (The Mason, Savior Farina). 

– «... One wonders if Freemasonry is not a religion, I say clearly 

that Masonry is a religion». (The Mason, Gorel Porciatti). 

– «(Freemasonry is) the largest, most beautiful, the noblest, the 

most civilized of all religions”, because whoever has asked to enter 

this Temple, understands that he left another Temple, where 

they worshiped false gods and liars». (The Mason, Ugo Lenzi). 

53

Above: The historic embrace between Paul VI and Patriarch of Constantinople Athenagoras, 

Primate of the schismatic Eastern Orthodox Church. It occurred on January 5, 1964, 

during the Pope’s trip to the Holy Land. 

Below: Paul VI with the Anglican Primate Donald Coggan, during the historic meeting of 

1977 in Rome, while adding their signatures to the final document of the talks. 

55

Above: A Mass in honor of Confucius and S. Thomas, in the Chinese Church of Formosa. 

(From “Mondo e Missione, January, 1979). 

Below: Paul VI and Dr. Ramsey, Archbishop of Canterbury. 

57

58 

«Love not the world, 

nor the things that are in the world! 

If any man love the world, 

the charity of the Father is not in him. 

For all that is in the world, 

is the concupiscence of the flesh, 

and the concupiscence of the eyes, 

and the pride of life, 

which is not of the Father, but is of the world. 

And the world passeth away, 

and the concupiscence thereof…» 

(John 2: 15-17)

CHAPTER II 

HIS “OPENING TO THE WORLD” 

It is now clear that the “new Church” of Paul VI has broken 

with the past: 

«The religion of the God who became man has 

met the religion of man who makes himself 

God» 1. 

There is, by now, “an osmosis” between the Church and the 

world 2; and that is, an inter-penetration; a reciprocal influence. 

And yet, the Apostle St. John had written, instead, «The whole 

world lieth in wickedness» 3. And Jesus had said, «He that is not 

with Me is against Me” 4. 

Even Leo XIII, in his encyclical “Humanum Genus”, had 

written: 

1 Council’s Closing Address, December 7, 1965. 

2 “Eucharistic Congress” of Pisa, June 7, 1965. 

3 1 John 5, 19. 

4 Matthew 12, 30. 

59

60 

«The race of man… separated into two diverse 

and opposite parts, of which the one steadfastly 

contends for truth and virtue, the other of those 

things which are contrary to virtue and to 

truth. The one is the kingdom of God on earth, 

namely, the true Church of Jesus Christ… The 

other is the kingdom of Satan» 5. 

But Paul VI, throughout his Pontificate, attempted to reconcile 

these two irreconcilable things; hence his contradictions, his ambiguities, 

precisely on account of his… “Love to the world”. 

«We have certainly intended to talk of the 

severity of the Saints toward the ills of the 

world. Many are still familiar with the books of 

asceticism that contain a globally negative 

judgment upon earthly corruption. But it is also 

certain that we do live in a different spiritual 

climate, having been invited, especially by 

the recent Council, to bring to the modern 

world an optimistic look towards its values, its 

achievements… The celebrated Constitution 

‘Gaudium et Spes’ is in its whole an encouragement 

toward this new spiritual approach» 6. 

This utterance of Paul VI’s would seem a clear invitation to 

abandon “the severity of the Saints”, the “books of asceticism”, 

in favor of this “new spiritual approach”, looking “with more optimism 

to the world”, in conclusion: to come to a positive judgment 

“about the corruption in the world”. And this because we 

live, today, in a “different spiritual climate”. 

And so, Paul VI’s mentality was one of “apertura al mondo” 

(Opening to the World). It can also be demonstrated by reading the 

5 Leo XIII, “Humanum Genus” 1884. 

6 General audience, July 3, 1974.

texts of the “International Seminar”, organized at Brescia, by the 

“Paul VI” Institute 7. 

Cardinal Poupard, in fact, in his introduction recalled a “question” 

Paul VI was asking himself: 

«What consciousness has the Church gained 

about Herself, after twenty centuries of history 

and after countless experiences and studies and 

treatises?». 

And here is the brief answer given by Montini himself: 

«The Church is communion. It is the communion 

of the Saints». 

“It seems to me – continued Cardinal Poupard – the specific 

contribution of Paul VI at Vatican II Council and the elaboration of 

its “Magna Charta” and the doctrinal Constitution “Lumen Gentium” 

is this global vision of the Church, seen as a “Mistery of 

communion”. 

The original contribution of Pope Montini to the Council – continued 

the cardinal – was that of providing a theological synthesis 

and conferring a cultural form on the Giovannean project of a 

Church “in line” with the new times and “renewed” in Her spirituality 

and in Her missionary drive”. 

Even the extraordinary Synod on the Council, in its final report, 

emphasized that “the ecclesiology of communion is the central 

and fundamental idea in the documents of the Council”, and that 

“it cannot be reduced into mere organizational or power-related 

issues”. 

«Therefore – continued Cardinal Poupard – the ecclesiology of 

communion must generate in the Church a style of communion at all 

levels, between faithful and priests, between priests and bishops, be- 

7 It was founded with the precise purpose of promoting the “scientific” study (!) 

of the figure of Pope Montini. It was held from September of 19-22, 1986. There 

attended 140 scholars, historians and theologians from various parts of the world. 

61

tween the bishops and the Pope. But even for the Church “ad extra”, 

this style of communion, that is, of “opening”, of respect 

and understanding, will increasingly characterize the action of 

the Church toward culture as a whole and toward all men, including 

non-believers». 

Even Jean Pierre Torrell, of the University of Friburg, in that 

same “conversation”, at Brescia, said «The Church takes shape, 

in this manner, as an incarnation lasting in time and as well as 

communion». 

Therefore, Pope Montini would have had an “opening to the 

world” in continuous evolution (= relativism), and would have 

wanted, for this, a new conception of a Church as “communion” 

between all men of the Church as well as with those “ad extra”. 

And so, this was the “original contribution,” Cardinal Poupard 

saw in the Modernist Paul VI at Vatican II, with the crucial contribution 

of the neo-Modernists. 

Good for us that the above mentioned Cardinal also recalled that 

Montini was very familiar with the French culture, which much contributed 

to the formation of such a view of the Church. In fact, Montini 

had read and studied (?) their books: that of De Lubac: “Meditation 

Upon the Church”; that of Hamer: “The Church is Communion”; 

that of Congar: “True and False Reform of the 

Church”; that of Maritain: “The Church of Christ”; etc… 

And so, that “new ecclesiology” of Montini’s came, as regular 

“foreign merchandise”, from France. But now, this was nothing 

new in a Montini whom, unprepared in theology – he never attended 

a regular class in philosophy, or theology – adapted so 

well to his “Modernist mind” already imbued with those Modernist 

ideas, having long frequented the drawing-room of Tommaso 

Gallarati Scotti, a fiery advocate of Modernism in Italy, and having 

had, for his favorite authors, a Maritain of the first hour, with 

his socialistic conception, a Bernanos, subsidizer of the “international 

brigades” during Spain’s Civil War – although aware of the 

destroyed churches and of the thousands of Bishops, Priests, Monks 

and Nuns massacred – a De Lubac, with his Catholicism reduced 

8 We cite an example: as a cardinal, at Milan. For his “Mission of Milan”, in the 

62

into a mere “humanism”, and so forth and so on. Authors, that is, 

who afford us to say that the Montini’s “choices”, from priest to 

Pope, were always consistent 8! 

And so to Paul VI, the “ecclesiology of communion” truly was 

“as the incarnation lasting in time and as well as a communion”, 

that is, a continuous evolution among all of its members and even 

for those “ad extra”. 

This concept of “Church-Communion” was thus that “original 

contribution” attributable to Paul VI. And yet we would be tempted 

to observe that never was there less “communion” than today, 

despite the ongoing chatter about it, not seldom out of turn. «There 

often is, in this holy and marvelous word, a bogus sound, or however 

ambiguous, which reveals a use of convenience, and therefore 

biased. The “communion”, too, is subjected to polemic. It 

serves a cause for which it was not born, and in front of which falls 

into contradiction. There are the “theorists” of this “communion”: 

those who distinguish it from the community; those who found it 

with the community; those who finalize the one to the other» 9. 

More clear and to the point, on this subject “Church-Communion”, 

on this “new ecclesiology”, that is, is Cardinal Ratzinger, in 

his “Ratzinger Report” 10, under the title: “At the Root of the 

Crisis: the Idea of Church”. Writes the Cardinal: 

«My impression is that, tacitly, one is losing the 

authentically Catholic reality of the “Church”, 

without rejecting it expressly». 

Now, would this be, therefore, the “original contribution” of 

Pope Montini to the Council? Concealing the “mystery” – “communion”, 

in the fashion of Loisy, the Father of Modernism, in “Au- 

Fall of 1957, Montini called, as speakers, don Mazzolari, Father Balducci, Father 

Turoldo, Cardinal Lercaro and the like. (“Paul VI – Images of a Pontificate”, 

A.A.V.V., Logos Editions, Rome 1978, p. 57). 

9 Monsignor Brunero Gherardini: “The Church Arch of the Alliance. Her Genesis, 

Her Paradox, Her Powers, Her Service”. 

10 Joseph Ratzinger, “Report on the Faith”, Chapter III, p. 45-54. 

63

tor d’un petit livre”, pretending to be refuting Harnack... and as 

the Modernists are still doing today. 

64 

«This term of “Church-Communion” is an “error” 

– continues Cardinal Ratzinger 11 – an error 

that led to the practical negation of the authentic 

concept of “obedience”, because the concept 

of an authority that has Her legitimacy (focus 

or center) in God, is rejected». 

Hence the Cardinal concludes, by saying: 

«Real reform (or “renovation”) is not to strive 

to put up new facades, but rather (contrary to 

what certain ecclesiologies think), real ‘RE- 

FORM’ is to endeavor to detach ourselves, to 

the greatest extent possible, from what is ours, 

so that what appears is that which is His, of 

Christ. It is a truth the Saints knew well, as 

they in fact reformed the Church profoundly, 

not by predisposing “plans” for new structures, 

but by reforming themselves» 12. 

It is precisely what Paul VI failed to do, when he chose instead 

to order “new structures”, arbitrary, over his brainy conceptions, 

which substituted the very “Constitution” wanted by Jesus and 

then clearly expressed in His Gospels. 

*** 

After which, it is not longer difficult to understand the reason 

for his opening toward the modern world and his “sincere love 

to his time”. And it is no use asking oneself what Paul VI intended 

by “world”, for he certainly did not intend the material universe, 

11 As above, p. 49. 

12 Idem.

with its sky, its land, plants and animals, etc., but rather, by “world” 

he positively intended the number of men with their own ideas, customs, 

way of life. Hence his “opening to the world” could but be 

that which, in the New Testament, particularly in St. Paul and St. 

John, in the entire Patristic literature and in the writings of all 

of the Saints has a contemptuous meaning, since the world is the 

“kingdom of sin”, as opposed, that is, to the “Kingdom of God”; 

hence the “spirit of the world” is in conflict with the “Spirit of 

God” 13; hence the “elements of the world” are like “bondages” 

keeping man tied down to sin 14. 

Now, if the devil is the “prince of this world” 15, the Kingdom 

of Jesus Christ cannot be of this world 16; rather, Jesus is hated by 

this “world” 17. Consequently, like Jesus, even the Christian is not 

of this world, for in him dwells the Spirit of Truth which the world 

cannot receive 18. 

That is why, in his First Letter, St. John Evangelist says: “I 

write unto you, little children…Love not the world, neither the 

things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love 

of the Father is not in him; for all that is in the world, the lust 

of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not 

of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away and 

the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever” 19. 

And St. Paul writes: “But God forbid that I should glory, save 

in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is 

crucified unto me, and I unto the world 20. 

And I could go on for quite a while, as the word “world” in the 

New Testament is a theological term in the strict sense of the word: 

13 1 Corinthians 2.12-2; 2 Corinthians 7, 10. 

14 Galatians 4. 3. 8; Colossians 2. 20. 

15 John. 12. 31, 16. 11; 2 Corinthians 4, 4. 

16 John 8-23; 16. 28; 18, 36. 

17 John 7, 7; 15. 18. 

18 John 15. 19; 17, 14 - John 2. 15. 

19 I John 2. 12-17. 

20 Galatians 6, 14. 

21 John 16, 33. 

65

“but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world” 21; “For whatsoever 

is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory 

that overcometh the world, even our Faith” 22. Supernatural 

Faith, that is! He that lacks it “loves the world” and the world loves 

him in return. 

And Jesus reaffirms this detachment from the world in His 

prayer to the Father for His Apostles, too: “I have given them Thy 

word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of 

the world, even as I am not of the world” 23. Thus “Opening to 

the World”, in the theological-Christian language, can only mean 

“Opening to Satan”, “Prince of This World”. 

Now, this is the very essence of Modernism. It is the Modernists, 

in fact, who call for a Church opened to the world 

through integral humanism, through the ignorance of the supernatural, 

through the reduction of the four Gospels and of the whole 

New Testament into a popular, profane book, almost a myth, born of 

the conscience of the early Christian communities. What to say, 

then, of Paul VI, whose mind was certainly immersed in a “spiritual 

climate” quite different from the evangelical one, which reads: 

“Woe unto the world because of offences!” 24, while, on the contrary, 

Paul VI did away from that “severity”, from those “negative 

judgments” of Christ against the world? 

At the outset of the “Second Session” of the Council, in fact, he 

had said already: 

66 

«The world must be aware that the Church regards 

it with profound sympathy, with genuine 

admiration, sincerely disposed not to subdue it, 

but to serve it; not to loathe it, but to value it; not 

to condemn it, but to sustain it and rescue it» 25. 

Even these words betray the “mission” of the Church of 

22 I John 5. 4. 

23 John 17, 14 and V, 16. 

24 Matthew 18, 7. 

25 Opening Address, 2d Session, September 29, 1963.

Christ, which is to place the men of this world under the yoke of 

Christ. And then, is it the duty of Bishops and Priests, perhaps, “to 

give value” to the world? Man is after earthly values on his own, 

while the Shepherds of souls must preach, “opportune et importune”, 

that those human values are a nothingness before God and 

eternity, as the Apostle Paul had already preached: “I count all 

things… but dung, that I may win Christ 26; that Christ who had 

said: “Whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he 

hath, he cannot be my disciple” 27. 

Paul VI, instead, goes on to repeat: 

«Our testimony is a sign of the approach of the 

Church toward the modern world: an approach 

made up of attention, of understanding, of admiration, 

and of friendship» 28. 

A language back to front, therefore, of that used by St. James: 

“know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with 

God? 29. 

Even at the opening of Session IV of the Council, Paul VI has 

said: 

«The Council offers the Church, and Us especially, 

a comprehensive view of the world: will 

the Church, and will we be able to do anything 

but to look at the world and to love it? This 

look at the world shall be one of the fundamental 

acts of the Session that is about to begin: 

once again and above all, love…» 30. 

26 Philippians 3, 8. 

27 Luke 14, 33. 

28 Special Audience, June 8, 1964 - Actes Pontificaux, Bellamin Editions (MT1), 

n. 139, p. 21. 

29 Jacob 4, 4. 

30 Council’s IV Session, September 14, 1965. 

67

Words that sound like a capitulation of a Church before the 

world. But Paul VI’s excitement grows unchecked: 

68 

«A wave of affection and admiration flowed out 

from the Council over the modern world of humanity… 

The modern world’s values were not 

only respected but also honored (!!), its efforts 

sustained, its aspirations purified and 

blessed» 31. 

Now, this “brimming over with love and admiration” for the 

world, whose “values” he “honors”, goes also counter to the Scriptures, 

which say: “Love not the world, neither the things that are 

in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father 

is not in him” 32. 

Nevertheless, Paul VI continued to disseminate his “love” for 

the world, presenting the reconciliation of the Church as a absolute 

evolution, an enrichment of the Catholic doctrine: 

«It seemed interesting to us to note some 

“moreaux” aspects of the Council, which we 

might define as characteristic, and, consequently, 

new and modern… One of these teachings, 

which changes our way of thinking, and, even 

more, our practical conduct, regards the view 

we Catholics must hold of the world in which 

we live. How does the Church regard the world 

today? This vision, the Council has broadened 

to us… broadened to the point of changing substantially 

our judgment and approach before 

the world. The doctrine of the Church, in fact, 

has grown richer with a more thorough knowledge 

of Her being and of Her mission» 33. 

31 Council’s Closing Address, December 7, 1965. 

32 I John 2, 15. 

33 Audience of March 5, 1969.

Hence to Paul VI, the Catholic approach before the World 

should “change”, “broaden”, leaving of Tradition but a few marks 

of paint. He himself reiterates it: 

«… The framework of this encounter between 

Church and World remains that of the Gospel. 

As a consequence, its fundamental theological 

and moral principles are the traditional and 

constitutional framework of Christian morality. 

But, in addition, the Church accepts, recognizes 

and serves the world such as it presents itself to 

Her today. She does not reject the formulas of 

the synthesis Church-world of the past… but… 

the Church, in Christ and like Christ, loves the 

world of today. She lives, She speaks, and She 

acts for it…» 34. 

Here, Paul VI is saying that, after the Council, the Church recognizes, 

yes, the eternal conflict between Gospel and World, but, 

“in addition”, She similarly recognizes the new approach, opposed 

to Tradition, and that is to say, She “recognizes, serves, and 

loves the world”, “such as the world presents itself today”. 

Doublespeak, that is. Two irreconcilable approaches. All that is 

left to do is to repeat the verdict of Christ: “No man can serve two 

masters” 35. That is to say: either one loves Jesus and His Gospel, or 

one loves the World, loathing Jesus and His Gospel. 

But Paul VI goes on to say: 

34 Idem. 

35 Matthew 6, 24. 

«This approach (of alliance “Church-World”) 

must become ‘characteristic’ in the Church of 

today; here, She stirs and draws in Her heart 

new apostolic energies (!!). She does not seek 

Her own way, She does not places Herself outside 

the existential situation of the world, but 

69

70 

She shares spiritually… with Her patient and 

accommodating charity… that charity that 

“bears anything, believes anything, hopes anything, 

endures anything” 36» 37. 

Here you have a typical example of how one could make a 

wicked use of the “Sacred Texts”. Under the cover that “charity 

pardons anything… puts up with anything…” one invokes tolerance 

toward the vices of the world, too. Not so did Jesus, however, 

when to the Pharisees, proud and duplicitous, He hollered: “O 

generation of vipers… Whited Sepulchers” 38. Sure, God is merciful 

toward the man that falls because of his weakness, but then repents, 

whereas He is terrible toward the pride and sensuality persisting 

in the world. 

Paul VI, instead, in the same Audience, had said: 

«This supposes “another mind”, which we may 

similarly qualify as “new”: the Church frankly 

admits the values proper of temporal realities; 

She recognizes, that is, that the world holds 

riches that he realizes in undertakings, he expresses 

in the realm of thought and arts, that he 

is deserving of praises, etc., in his being, in his 

becoming, in his own domain, even if he were 

not baptized, if he were a profane, a layman, a 

secular… “The Church – says the Council – 

recognizes all that is good in the social dynamism 

of today” 39» 40. 

Hence, the Church should become “neutral”, and, therefore, 

“praise the profane, lay, secular world”. But then, do the severe 

36 I Corinthians 13, 4-7. 

37 Audience of March 5, 1969. 

38 Matthew 12, 34; Matthew 23, 27-33. 


40 Audience of March 5, 1969.

words of St. Paul: «If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let 

him be Anathema» 41, still bear any import today? And what consequence 

does the even graver and decisive Word of Jesus, carry: 

«For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, 

and lose his own soul?» 42. 

There is matter for reflection. But reflection was also Paul VI’s 

obligation. And why on earth, then, would he not remember that: 

“Woe unto me, if I preach not the gospel! 43 of St. Paul? 

But, perhaps, to Paul VI, that traditional teaching had become a 

negative teaching, one deserving of discredit. 

«This approach, full of caution and boldness, 

which the Church manifests today toward the 

present world, must modify and shape our 

mind of faithful Christians, still immersed in 

the whirling of modern profane life… We must 

explain, with much caution and precision, the 

difference between the positive vision of the 

worldly values the Church is presenting to Her 

faithful today, and the negative vision, without 

annulling what of true is in the latter, that the 

wisdom and asceticism of the Church have so 

many times taught us with regard to the contempt 

of the world… But we wish to conclude 

making it our own and recommending this optimistic 

vision the Council is presenting to us, 

about the contemporary world…» 44. 

These are more of his… fraudulent words! 

“The wisdom and asceticism of the Church” – said he, in fact 

– has taught us, for centuries, “a negative vision” of the worldly 

values. Today, while not denying “what is true” in that “con- 

41 I Corinthians 16, 22. 

42 Matthew 16, 26. 

43 Corinthians 9, 16. 

44 Audience of March 5, 1969. 

71

tempt of the world”, the Church presents to us a “differentiated” 

vision of the world; rather, a “positive vision”. 

Regrettably, this obsession of his became also his line of pastoral 

conduct, as he appointed, for example, the Bishops in consonance 

with his own mindset. Cardinal Ratzinger confirms it in his 

book, “Rapporto sulla Fede”: 

72 

«In the first years following Vatican II Council, 

the candidate to the episcopate seemed to be a 

priest primarily “opened to the world”, and, indeed, 

this prerequisite topped the list. After the 

1968 Movement, with the worsening of the crisis, 

it was discovered, not seldom through bitter 

experiences, that what was needed were bishops 

open to the world, and yet concurrently capable 

of standing up to the world and to its harmful 

tendencies, in order to heal them, contain them, 

alert the faithful against them. Many bishops 

have harshly experienced, in their own dioceses, 

how times have really changed in comparison 

with the not-so-critical (an euphemism?) optimism 

of the immediate post-Council» 45. 

What then? Wasn’t Paul VI, too, supposed to be aware of the irreducible 

conflict between the two visions of “Christ” and 

“World”? And why, then, his stubbornness in continually reiterating 

that, today, there is instead a blissful alliance between them, almost 

ignoring that, on the contrary, there are no real values in the 

“worldly realities” which St. Paul categorically “counts as 

dung” 46. 

Nonetheless, in that “Conversation” at Brescia’s “Paul VI” Institute, 

it was insisted upon the continuity of John XXIII’s Pontificate 

and that of Paul VI, and the opening to the world. Cardinal 

Poupard – as we already mentioned – underscored that «the origi- 

45 Joseph Ratzinger, “Report on the Faith”, p. 65 and subsequent. 

46 Philippians 3, 8.

nal contribution of Pope Montini to the Council was that of providing 

a theological synthesis (?!) as well as conferring a cultural 

form upon John XXIII’s project of a Church in line with the 

new times, and renewed in Her effort». 

And the Jesuit Father, Professor Giacomo Martina, reported 

that «Paul VI’s concern lies… above all, in emphasizing the element 

that characterizes and ensures the continuity between the two 

pontificates: the opening toward the modern world and the sincere 

love to their own time». 

Of this “mens” [“mind” or “mindset,”] there was also a confirmation 

in that other Convention, promoted by the Marche Region 

Institute “J. Maritain” on the theme: “The Road to Vatican II”. 

The current Secretary Monsignor Camillo Ruini attended the 

“Convention” in representation of the Italian Episcopal Conference. 

Well, «The theme – wrote Baldoni – focused particularly on the 

figure of Pope Roncalli and on the opening to the world, on the 

fact that this exceptional Pope had just wanted to look out the 

window». 

Monsignor Capovilla, however, saw to it to reveal – for the first 

time – to «have seen the face of the Pontiff furrowed with tears, 

on the verge of his death, on account of the fact that some were 

affirming that he had set into motion a process that would not 

have been for the good of the Church»! 

The “weeping” of Pope Roncalli, demonstrates he had not foreseen 

the negative effects of his decisions, of his apostolic actions 

(!!) made without consulting his Secretary of State, Cardinal Tardini, 

or any of the Cardinals responsible for the various jurisdictional 

Congregations, particularly that of the Holy Office, whereas he paid 

heed, of preference, to his troubadour-counselor, his seditious personal 

Secretary, Monsignor Capovilla, so much so that Cardinal 

Tardini came to offer his resignation from his post, and Cardinal 

Siri, then head of the CEI (Italian Episcopal Conference), protested 

with the Pope for Monsignor Capovilla’s unusual intrusiveness and 

rash behavior, although to no avail 47. 

47 Pope Montini, instead, rewarded that hypnotizer, at Venice, of Cardinal Roncalli, 

and then of Pope John XXIII, for his services, appointing him Archbishop 

73

Paul VI, however, after the “Pacem in Terris”, flung open the 

doors of the Council to his “apertura al mondo” (opening to the 

world). One has only to read the “Gaudium et Spes” to dispel any 

doubt. His “love for the world”, his “cult of man”, were but a 

counter-altar to the straightforward affirmation of Jesus, “My kingdom 

is not of this world” 48. 

74 

*** 

Sure, it was a real utopia that nourished his agitated soul, his 

“playing Hamlet”, his obsession of reconciling, at any cost, the 

Church with the “modern world”, ie. with modern philosophy, subjective 

and immanent, and “modern culture”, steeped in subjectivism 

and immanentence. Surely it wasn’t a guiltless action, for it 

was a path already blocked off by the Magisterium of the Past, with 

the “Mirari Vos” (1832) of Gregory XVI, with “Sillabo” (1864) of 

Pius IX, with “Pascendi” (1907) of St. Pius X, with “Humani 

Generis” (1950) of Pius XII, which firmly condemns all these 

“apertures” and, consequently, even those false “restorations” 

that suffocated the perennial philosophy, the Scholastic theology, 

and the dogmatic Tradition of the Church. 

It is the “new theology” that has determined the crisis that paralyzes 

the life of the Church, as it is permeated – we repeat with the 

“Humani Generis” – with “false opinions that threaten to subvert 

the foundations of the Catholic doctrine”. 

Sure, it is not easy to fathom, in these few pages, his thought, 

enveloped in a language often times vague and obscure, which renders 

it incomprehensible, although providing “pictures” of apparent 

respectability, which conceal, however, dissembled errors and ambiguities. 

What is clear, however, was always his “cult of man”, his “love 

for the world”, which nourished his “chimeras”, specifically: 

– Humanity is “marching” toward a new world, toward an 

of Chieti, whence he was kicked out, however, by the local Authorities and hastily 

transferred to the Basilica of Loreto. 

48 John 18. 36.

ideal society in which freedom, brotherhood, and equality shall 

reign; in which the perfect respect of “Man’s Rights”, and the 

“Great Democracy” shall be achieved, fulfilling the dream of the 

French Revolution. 

– “Universal peace” shall rule, thanks to the principles of natural 

morals, accessible to all. All that is needed is to stir and foster 

“the conscience of humanity”. 

– All the forces of the men of goodwill (including the “reformed” 

Church) must unite to form this “new world” and this 

“new ideal society”. 

– The Church, however, in this construction of the “worldly 

paradise”, should have a mere “supplementary” role, as She 

would be complementing the role of the “United Nations”. In any 

case, the means of the natural order would stand above the supernatural 

order. 

But the “glory of God” and the salvation of the souls”, is a 

theme Paul VI, in his writings and speeches, has nearly forgotten. 

«It is the leavening of the Gospel that has 

aroused and continues to arouse in man’s heart 

the need for irrepressible dignity» 49. 

Hence to Paul VI, the Gospel seems to be a mere instrument, 

almost the “pretext” for a sort of world political revolution that 

must lead to the age of the Kingdom of “Man’s Rights”, proclaimed 

by the French Revolution of 1789. 

In fact, in an address to the “Diplomatic Corps”, Paul VI had already 

hinted at his belief: 

«We have trust in human reason… One day, 

reason will be the last word» 50. 

Luckily, that day shall never come. And yet ever since that 1789 

this trust in human reason is being preached. Nothing is more lu- 

49 “Populorum Progressio”, 26 March 1967, n. 32. 

50 “Le Courrier de Rome”, April 25, 1970. 

75

dicrous, however, since this human reason has been severed from its 

root, God, and placed at the service of the baseness of human nature. 

That is why any catastrophe is and will be possible. 

But Paul VI, even in this other statement, said: 

76 

«The Church attempts to adapt to the language, 

customs, and tendencies of the men of 

our time, all absorbed by the rapidity of material 

evolution and so demanding for their individual 

particularities. This opening is in the 

spirit of the Church…» 51. 

Pius X, blessed predecessor of Paul VI, on May 27, 1914, - 

warning a group of new cardinals on adapting a certain spirit of 

adaptation to the world, had said: «We are, alas, in a time in which 

certain ideas of reconciliation of the Faith with the modern spirit 

are all too easily accepted; ideas that lead the way farther 

than what one might be led to think, not only toward a weakening, 

but also toward a loss of the Faith…». But Paul VI, perhaps, 

no longer remembered that Christianity has its center in the Cross of 

Christ… as he followed in the footsteps of Rousseau, who affirmed 

that “man is good”, which clashes entirely with the Christian doctrine 

that affirms, on the contrary, “man was born a sinner”, 

hence, as Jesus says, «None is good, save one, that is, God. None 

is good but God alone» 52. 

But then, how is Paul VI’s approach of “opening to the world”, 

steadfast and stubborn to the point of saying that 

«… It is our duty to promote the formation of a 

mentality and practice which would best suit 

the true moral progress of man and society» 53? 

And yet, even the Protestant theologian, Karl Barth, posed the 

51 Speech at Milan, September 1958. 

52 Luke 18, 19. 

53 “L’Osservatore Romano” of October 22, 1970.

question, on that “opening to the world”, on the part not only of 

Protestantism of any chapter, but also of post-Conciliar Roman 

Catholicism: 

«With the windows opened onto the world – he 

wrote – haven’t our “Protestants”, as well as the 

last Council, gone too far? When too many windows 

are built and opened, the house ceases to be 

a house… the concept of “Church” could be 

broadened to the extent that it would fade out into 

the dark haze of an unconscious Christianity» 54. 

Paul VI, however, continued to pursue a mission rather temporal 

than spiritual, in order to edify, in fact, that “New World”, that 

“ideal society”, that “great universal brotherhood”. 

«All of us, Churches included, are involved in 

the birth of a “new world”. God… in His love 

for man, organizes the movements of history 

for the progress of humanity and in view of a 

new earth and new heavens, wherein justice 

shall be perfect» 55. 

And again: 

«The Catholic Church urges all of Her sons to 

undertake, together with all men of goodwill of 

every race and nation, this peaceful crusade for 

the well-being of man… in order to “establish a 

global community, united and brotherly» 56. 

Words in the wind! And a dream, it was, that “progress of humanity” 

of his which in reality is ever quaking with revolutionary 

54 Karl Barth, “Renewal and Unity of the Church”, Rome, 1969, Silva Editore. 

55 Address to the Australians, November 30, 1970. 

56 Ibidem. 

77

wars, with all sorts of hatred, as if taking flight from reality and 

from the Christian duty of carrying the inevitable cross of injustice 

«It is impossible that scandals should not come: but woe to him 

through whom they come» 57. And this is because evil, injustice, 

and suffering shall always dwell with us. That is why the Church 

has always preached the extraordinary value of suffering, continuation 

of the redemption of Christ: «I fill up those things that are 

wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, 

which is the Church» 58. 

As for that “peaceful crusade for the well-being of a new 

world”, then, the Cross of Christ should give way to the Masonic 

movement, which similarly preaches a global brotherhood. 

Therefore, Paul VI insists: 

78 

«Isolation is no longer an option. The hour has 

come of the great solidarity among men, toward 

the establishment of a global and fraternal 

community» 59. 

Could one not think, at this point: if the whole world has to 

change, should religion not change, too? If between the reality of 

life and Christianity – especially Catholicism – there is disagreement, 

misunderstanding, indifference, mutual hostility, how could 

Christianity claim to have retained any influence upon today’s life? 

Is that why Vatican II called for “reforms” and “revisions”? But 

why, then, did Jesus say, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but 

my words shall not pass away”? 60. And if that is how things stand, 

the Gospel shall always be the same, regardless of world changes. 

And the doctrine of Jesus shall be always “A sign which shall be 

contradicted” 61. 

But Paul VI continued to believe that it were possible to put to- 

57 Luke 17, 1. 

58 Colossians 1, 24. 

59 Address to the Australians - D. C. January 3, 1971, n. 1577. 

60 Matthew 24, 35. 

61 Luke 2, 34.

gether “a pagan world” and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Perhaps 

he believed the influence of Christianity depended upon a reformation 

“in the sense of the world”, even if this reform of the Church 

and its doctrine, in order to avoid offending the sensibility of the 

world, would mean “apostasy” - a “change of religion”! 

«Know ye not that the friendship of the world 

is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore will 

be a friend of the world is the enemy of God» 62. 

And that, even Paul VI should have known! Rather than fancying 

a Masonic-like humanitarian and social philanthropic organization. 

Quite the contrary! 

«The Church, although respecting the jurisdiction 

of the Nations, must offer Her help to promote 

a global humanism, I mean to say, an integral 

development of man as a whole and of 

each and every man… Placing Herself at the 

forefront of social action, She must direct all of 

Her efforts to sustaining, encouraging, and driving 

the initiatives that operate toward the integral 

promotion of man» 63. 

Hence, to Paul VI, the Church must no longer focus upon the 

evangelization of the peoples for the salvation of the souls, but 

rather “spare no effort” toward the promotion of a “full humanism”, 

possibly taking up the vanguard of the social action. 

The encyclical “Populorum Progressio” was precisely a push 

toward that mindset of his: 

«The fight against poverty, urgent and necessary, 

is not enough. It is a question of building 

a human community wherein men can live tru- 

62 James 4, 4. 

63 D. C. September 20, 1970, n. 1576, p. 1112-1114. 

79

80 

ly human lives, free from discrimination on account 

of race, religion or nationality, free from 

servitude to other men or to natural forces they 

cannot yet control satisfactorily. It involves 

building a human community wherein freedom 

is not an idle word, wherein the needy Lazarus 

can sit down with the rich man at the same 

banquet table» 64. 

Building a world, that is, wherein every man might live a fully 

“human” life. 

«They strive to learn more, and have more so 

that they might increase their personal worth. 

And yet, at the same time, a large number of 

them live amid conditions that frustrate these 

legitimate desires» 65. 

Perhaps here, again, Paul VI overlooked Jesus’ maxim, when he 

said, “It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than 

for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God” 66. 

But Paul VI’s utopia rested upon his faith on man. 

«We have trust in man. We believe in the store 

of goodness in everyone’s heart. We know the 

motives of justice, truth, renewal, progress, and 

brotherhood that lie at the root of so many 

wonderful undertakings, and even of so many 

protests and, unfortunately, of violence at 

times. It is up to you not to flatter man but to 

make him aware of his worth and capabilities…» 

67. 

64 “Populorum Progressio”, n. 47. 


66 Luke 18, 25. 

67 To the journalists, Sydney, Australia, December 2, 1970.

His words induce us to reflect upon the Words of the Scriptures: 

«Cursed is the strong man who trusts in man and has set up 

flesh as his arm» 68. 

On the contrary, in Paul VI’s writings always transpires, between 

the lines, his profound conviction that man, even without the Grace 

of God, by his own strength alone, can improve his human venture, 

establishing that global brotherhood that would wipe out every war, 

every poverty, and every injustice. Sure, Paul VI does not deny that 

God is necessary in this process of improvement of man, but it is 

clear that his accent is not placed on this point, the only essential 

one. He puts his emphasis, rather, on the possibility of man as such. 

«When all is said and done, - says he - if man 

can, at length, do nothing without man, one can 

(instead), with him, do anything and succeed in 

anything, so much so that are indeed spirit and 

heart to first carry off the real victories» 69. 

Here, too, Paul VI forgets what Jesus said: “For without me ye 

can do nothing” 70. And yet to him it does not seem to work this 

way. In his speeches, numerous, about “peace”, a call to a “universal 

human conscience”, or to some “principles of natural 

morals”, are never wanting. 

«Isn’t peace impossible; are man’s powers sufficient 

to secure it and maintain it? We would 

refrain, at this time, from offering exhaustive 

answers to this anguishing question which calls 

into play the most arduous theses of history’s 

thinking, to conclude merely with a word of 

Christ: “The things which are impossible with 

men are possible with God” 71» 72. 

68 Jeremiah 17, 5. 

69 Address to FAO, November 16, 1970. 

70 John 15, 5. 

71 Luke 18, 27. 

72 October 4, 1966. 

81

Here, too, however, Paul VI eludes the question, since he refuses 

to say whether or not God be necessary to the issue of world 

peace. On January 1, 1968, in fact, in his “Message” for the “Day 

of Peace”, he had said: 

82 

«The subjective foundation of Peace is a new 

spirit that must animate coexistence between 

peoples, a new outlook on man… Much 

progress must yet be made to render this outlook 

universal and effective; a new pedagogy 

must educate the new generations to reciprocal 

respect between nations, to brotherhood between 

peoples… One cannot legitimately speak 

of peace where no recognition or respect is given 

to its solid foundations: sincerity, justice and 

love in the relations between states… between 

citizens..; the freedom of individuals and peoples, 

in all its expressions…». 

So that’s Paul VI’s idea of peace: a “new spirit”, a “new 

mind”, and a “new pedagogy”. And here are the “foundations”: to 

give a “new ideological education”. 

«Peace is the logical aim of the present world; it 

is the destiny of progress… There is need, today… 

A new ideological education, education 

for peace… Let us realize, men, our brothers, 

the greatness of this futuristic vision, and let us 

courageously undertake the first program: to 

educate ourselves for Peace» 73. 

And furthermore: 

«Before being a policy, peace is a spirit… It 

forms, it takes hold of the consciences, in this 

73 Peace Day Message, November 30, 1969.

philosophy of life each has to build for himself, 

as a light for his steps upon the paths of the 

world and in the experiences of life. That 

means, dearest brothers and sons, that peace 

requires an education. We affirm it, here, by 

the altar of Christ, as we celebrate the Holy 

Mass» 74. 

The light, therefore, guiding man’s steps, is no longer the Christ 

who said: «I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall 

not walk in darkness» 75: it is no longer this “philosophy of life”, 

Paul VI wanted. Said he, in fact: 

«One must succeed and banish war; it is human 

convenience demanding it» 76. 

Hence man should repress vengeance, sacrifice his egoism, convert 

his hatred, in the name of this “human convenience demanding 

it”. Downright ludicrous! 

And yet, Paul VI insists: 

«Although difficult, it is indispensable (however), 

to acquire an authentic conception of 

peace… Peace is a most human thing. If we 

seek from where it really comes, we discover 

that it sinks its roots in the loyal sense of man 

(!!). A peace that is not born of the real cult of 

Man, is not essentially a peace» 77. 

That’s it! “True peace” would thus be coming from the “Cult 

of Man”! 

74 Peace Day Allocution, January 1, 1970. 

75 John 8, 12. 

76 Peace Day Allocution, February 1, 1970. 

77 December 16, 1971. 

83

84 

«We wish to give meaning to our lives . Life is 

worth the meaning we give to it, the direction 

we impart to it, the end we direct it to. What is 

the end? It is peace. Peace is a beautiful thing, 

yet difficult… It is the fruit of great struggles, 

of great plans, and, most of all, it is the fruit of 

justice: If you want Peace, work for Justice» 78. 

But if peace is founded upon justice, what is justice founded upon? 

«Minds must be disarmed if we effectively wish 

to stop the recourse to arms which strike bodies. 

It is necessary to give to peace, that is to say 

to all men, the spiritual roots of a common 

form of thought and love… This interiorization 

of peace is true humanism, true civilization. 

Fortunately it has already begun. It is maturing 

as the world develops… The world is progressing 

towards its unity» 79. 

What an illusion, poor Paul VI! Is, perhaps, the “world marching 

toward his unity today?“ Wars are up, conflicts have intensified, 

and guerrilla warfare is bloodying the population… 

And then, that his “common denominator” that provides a 

“common way of thinking and loving”, to him it would no longer 

be the Gospel of Christ, “Way, Truth, and Life” 80, but that “civilized 

conscience” that would make the “Charter” of “Man’s 

Rights” rule anywhere. 

«… What is our message? We need, above all, 

the moral weapons, which give strength and 

78 Peace Day Allocution, January 1, 1972. 

79 Peace Day Allocution, February 1, 1975. 

80 John 14, 6.

prestige to international law; the weapon, 

starting with the compliance of agreements» 81. 

Now, once again Paul VI gives pre-eminence to human means. 

Let us go back, therefore, to his incredible address of October 4, 

1965 at the United Nations. Was it not, perhaps, a recital of his 

“Creed” in the “Religion of Man?” Let us read again those “passages” 

that aroused not a little amazement: 

«Our message - said he - is meant to be, first of 

all, a moral and solemn ratification of this lofty 

Institution… We bring to this organization the 

suffrage of our recent Predecessors, that of the 

entire Catholic Episcopate, and our own, convinced 

as we are, that this organization represents 

the obligatory path of modern civilization 

and of world peace… The peoples of the earth 

turn to the United Nations as the last hope of 

concord and peace. We presume to present 

here, together with our own, their tribute to 

honor and of hope» 82. 

Every person that had retained a minimal Christian sense, must 

have protested and criticized that profession of faith in an Atheistic 

and Masonic Organization, which Paul VI went as far as define 

an “obligatory path” and “last hope of peace”… 

And that, he repeated in his other message addressed to 

U’Thant, then Secretary General of the UN, on the occasion of the 

25th anniversary of that organization: 

«Once again, on this day, we wish to repeat 

what we had the honor to proclaim on October 

4, 1965, to the audience of your Assembly: This 

organization represents the obligatory path of 

81 Peace Day Allocution, November 16, 1975. 

82 Address to the UN, October 4, 1965. 

85

86 

modern civilization and of world peace… If the 

breeding grounds of violence are always on the 

rise… The consciousness of humanity affirms itself, 

with like occurrence, increasingly stronger 

on this privileged forum where… Men recover 

their inalienable common trait: the human in 

man… Thus, we renew our confidence that your 

organization would be able to respond to the immense 

hope of a brotherly global community, 

where anyone might experience a truly human 

life» 83. 

I repeat: it is a new profession of faith in the UN and in man, 

whereas the Scriptures tell us: “Blessed is that man that maketh 

the LORD his trust, and respecteth not the proud… 84. 

But there, at the UN, it wasn’t certainly Peter to have spoken. 

For Peter, authentic Vicar of Christ, would not certainly “kneel 

down” before the pride of Man, incarnated in that Masonic Organization 

that wants to run the world without God. 

Paul VI, however, went on saying: 

83 October 4, 1970. 

84 Psalm 40, 4. 

«Beware, dear friends, that we are ready, today, 

to deliver you a message of hope. Not only is the 

cause of man not lost, but also it is in a privileged 

and safe situation (?!). The great ideas 

(you may include the Gospel, if so you wish) that 

are like the beacons of the modern world shall 

not die out. The unity of the world shall be accomplished. 

The dignity of the human person 

shall be recognized in its actuality and not only 

formally… The unjust social inequalities shall 

be suppressed. The relations between the peoples 

shall be founded upon peace, reason, and

otherhood… This is not a dream, or utopia, 

neither is it a myth: it is evangelical realism» 85. 

It feels like a dream! A Pope, Paul VI, announcing a world 

without suffering, without the Cross! And that would be nothing less 

than “evangelical realism”. The Words of Jesus spring to mind: 

«Get thee behind me, Satan… Thou art a scandal 

unto me: for thou savourest not the things 

that be of God» 86. 

Words Jesus told Peter, himself, as he did not want Him to suffer 

the Passion. And what also comes to mind are the words St. Pius 

X wrote in his “Letter on the Sillon”: 

«Jesus did not announce for future society the 

reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering 

would be banished; but, by His lessons and 

by His example, He traced the path of the happiness 

which is possible on earth and of the perfect 

happiness in Heaven: the royal way of the 

Cross. These are teachings that it would be 

wrong to apply only to one’s personal life in order 

to win eternal salvation; these are eminently 

social teachings, and they show in Our Lord 

Jesus Christ something quite different from an 

inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism» 87. 

Clear and doctrinal words that crush all of the fleeting sociological 

follies of Pope Paul VI’s. 

85 Easter Message, 1971. 

86 Matthew 16, 23. 

87 Pius X “Letter on the Sillon”, of August 25, 1910, n. 42. 

87

88 

“LIBERTY - EQUALITY - BROTHERHOOD” 

«You are yourself God, Pope and King. Your reason is the only rule 

of Truth, the only key to the science and politics. You have to understand 

and interpret our holy enterprise as follows: “liberty, equality, fraternity”. 

FREEDOM means: 

– Independence, unlimited (...) free from authority. 

– Independence of spirit (...) or limitation by any dogma. 

– Independence of the will... that recognizes neither King nor Pope 

nor God 

– Independence of the personality, which has broken all the chains... 

earth, sky (...) for its complete emancipation. 

And freedom, as leverage, and human passions, as a base that demolishes 

forever the king and the Priests... 

EQUALITY means: 

– Equality of property... 

– Equality of fortunes, with the proportionate balance of wages with 

the abolition of the right of inheritance, with the confiscation... 

– Equality of individuals, with solidarity, with equal enjoyment to its 

own production solidarity. 

With Equality as leverage and human appetites as a foothold, we’ll 

see disappear forever, Silver Aristocracy, implacable executioner of 

the human race. 

BROTHERHOOD means: 

– Brotherhood in Freemasonry forms a State within a State with an 

independent media unknown to the State. 

– Brotherhood in Freemasonry forms a State against a State (...) more 

– Brotherhood in Freemasonry, to constitute a higher State against 

State... 

With Brotherhood as leverage, and human hatred as a base, Parasitism 

and armed Repression will disappear forever... ». 

(Secret Instruction of Leaders Incognito to General Garibaldi)

Above: The Jesuit and dancer Saju George with the ornaments of an Indian ritual dance. 

Below: A group of “worker priests” in their meeting in Serramazzone - Modena (Italy).

Above: Three Dominican Sisters (from left: Sister Kathleen Corr, Sister Mary Templeton, 

Sr. Toscano Lenon, headmaster of the “School of St. Nicholas”) receiving an award of merit 

during the National Congress of Women held at Green Point and Williamsburg. (Ed. 

Wilkinson photo). 

On bottom left: “Sister beautician” Sister Ida, who is a student incognito of the “beautician” 

Parisian Jean Destrée, pictured at work in her monastery. Here she is dealing with a 

lay customer. 

Bottom right: The “Sister Policeman”. Her name is Sister Mary Cornelia, of the Sisters 

of Divine Providence” Granite City (Illinois). She is a “full time” policewoman. The boys 

call her “Sister Fuzz.” (UPI Telephoto).

Above: A girl ... “Confessional”!.. 

Right: A Capuchin friar, in Calabria 

(Italy), who chaired the jury for the regional 

selections of “Miss Italy” 1997. 

Right: Father Lawrence 

Craig, surrounded by “glamour” 

Sixth Class of Saint 

Mary’s College, Middlesbrough 

(England). Fr. Craig 

was assigned to the singing 

part of owner of a nightclub 

in the recent [Musical] production 

“Sweet Charity”! 

91

92 

«Many who belong 

to the ranks of the priesthood itself, 

who, animated by a false zeal for the Church, 

lacking the solid safeguards of 

philosophy and theology, 

nay more, thoroughly imbued with the 

poisonous doctrines 

taught by the enemies of the Church, 

and lost to all sense of modesty, 

put themselves forward 

as reformers of the Church; 

and, forming more boldly into line of attack, 

assail all that 

is most sacred in the work of Christ…». 

(Pope St. Pius X, “Pascendi”)

CHAPTER III 

HIS “OPENING TO MODERNISM” 

St. Pius X, in his encyclical “Pascendi” against “Modernism”, 

wrote that the advocates of error were hiding, by now, even inside 

the Church, “In the very bosom of the Church”, and that their 

“counsels of destruction” stirred them “not outside the Church, 

but inside of Her; so much so that the danger lies in wait almost in 

Her very veins and viscera”. 

With the “Motu Proprio” of November 18, 1907, Pius X 

added “the excommunication to those who contradict these documents” 

(encyclical “Pascendi” and decree “Lamentabili”). He 

was addressing the Bishops and Superior Generals of all Orders and 

Institutes. 

In 1946, the great P. Garrigeu Lagrange, O. P., in his article “La 

Nouvelle Théologie Où Va-t-elle?”, denounced the work of doctrinal 

corruption amidst the clergy, seminarians and Catholic intellectuals. 

He speaks of “typed sheets… distributed… in which were 

found the most singular assertions and negations about “original 

sin”, the “Real Presence”, and about all the other truths of Faith 

(negation of the eternity of hell, Polygenism…); “a general convergence 

of religions toward a universal Christ whom, all in all, 

satisfies everyone; the only conceivable religion as a Religion of 

93

the future”. It is the essence of today’s ecumenism; to make every 

religion converge into Christ, separated, however, from His Mystical 

Body, the Catholic Church (in the “Lumen Gentium”, the light 

of the Gentiles, of the Pagans, is Christ, and not His Church). De 

Lubac, author of the “Surnaturel”, the most forbidden of the “forbidden 

books”, and also author of the “Corpus Mysticum”, with 

its dogmatic relativism, explained that repeatedly. 

The Vatican II, therefore, under such influxes, “has avoided, 

in its main documents, the use of the term “supernatural” 1. 

Romano Amerio, too, in his “Jota Unum” (Chapter XXXV), 

writes: 

94 

«The Council does not speak of supernatural 

light, but of “fullness of light”. The naturalism 

characterizing the two documents “Ad Gentes” 

and “Nostra Aetate” is patent also in its terminology, 

as the word “supernatural” does not occur 

in it». 

Father Henrici, in the magazine “30 Giorni” (December, 1991) 

underscores that the “Nouvelle Théologie” (condemned by Pius XII 

in “Humani Generis”, in accord with St. Pius X) “has become the 

official theology of Vatican II”. 

This is also confirmed by the fact that the “key posts” in the 

Church have already been assigned to the modern exponents of the 

“Nouvelle Théologie”, whose official newspaper is the Magazine 

“Communio”, subsidized by Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Sacred 

Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. 

Someone has pointed out that several theologians, named 

bishops in recent years, come from the files of “Communio”; 

such as the Germans Lehman and Kasper; the Swisse Von Schönbern 

and Corecce; the French Léonard; the Italian Scola; the 

Brazilian Romer... 

1 Jesuit Father Peter Henrici, in “Communio”, November-December 1990: “The 

Maturation of the Council – Pre-Council Theological Experiences”, p. 44.

It must also be noted that the “founders” of this Magazine 

“Communio”, Balthasar, De Lubac, and Ratzinger, have become 

cardinals. Today, to this host of names, can be added the Dominican 

George Cottier, theologian (regretfully) of the “Pontifical 

House”; Jean Duchesne, the press-agent of Cardinal Lustiger, and 

the Hegelian André Leonard (today bishop of Namur and responsible 

for the Seminary of Saint Paul, where Lustiger sends his seminarians). 

I also wish to point to the work: “Vatican II - Situation and 

Prospects 25 Years After: 1962-1987”, in which its author, René 

Lateurelle, S.J., illustrates the triumph of the “new theology” and 

the favor it received with Paul VI. 

P. Martina, S.J., on pg. 46, writes: 

«If one cannot certainly talk of excommunications 

and subsequent canonizations, some great 

theologians were, however, in those years, made 

the object of several restrictive measures, only 

to take on, afterwards, a prominent role among 

the main Conciliar experts; and they had a 

thorough influence upon the genesis of the decrees 

of the Vatican II. Some books, in 1950, 

were banished from the libraries, but, after the 

Council, their authors became cardinals (de 

Lubac, Daniéleu...). Some pastoral initiatives 

(such as that of the “working priests”) were 

condemned and cut short, but were resumed 

during and after the Council». 

And so, the “Humani Generis” of Pius XII (1950) was practically 

retracted by another Pope, Paul VI, who brought back into 

the limelight his own theologians, whom his predecessor had condemned. 

And so, with the advent of Paul VI on the Pontifical See, 

there came into being that “reformist religion” which, by degrees, 

supplanted the traditional religion. From the loftiness of his 

Papal See, Paul VI could impose those liberal and pro-Modernist 

leanings he had breathed ever since his youth, setting off immediately 

that insane and ruinous process of “experimentation” in the 

95

Church, which is but “novelties” supported by the Modernists. 

I make brief mention of Paul VI’s “antithetical parallelism” to 

the Pontificate of St. Pius X, who had erected “barriers” against 

Modernism, which Paul VI, however, knocked down with obstinate 

decision, one after the other. 

Here they are: 

– Pius X, with the Motu Proprio “Sacrorum Antistitum” 

(September 1910) had imposed the “anti-Modernist oath”; but 

Paul VI abolished it. 

– Pius X, against the ecclesiastics that contested “Decreto 

Lamentabili” and the encyclical “Pascendi”, with the Motu Proprio 

of November 18, 1907 inflicted the excommunication “Latae 

Sententiae”, reserved to the Roman Pontiff; but Paul VI destroyed 

it, ruling that he would not hear of excommunications anymore 

(And why, then, the excommunication of Monsignor Lefebvre?). 

– In order to confront the “synthesis of all heresies”, Modernism, 

Pius X had reorganized the Holy Office through the Constitution 

“Sapienti Consilio” of June 29, 1908; but Paul VI, with 

grave incipient counsel, destroyed it, abolished it, stating that of 

“heresies” and widespread disorders, “thank God there are no 

more within the Church” (“Ecclesiam Suam”) and that “the defense 

of Faith, now (?!) is better served by the promotion of 

Doctrine than by condemnation” (1965). (Perhaps the promoters 

of “heresies” are not lacking in “doctrine”, other than in “good 

Faith”? Perhaps the Church is no longer called to the gravest duty 

of employing Her coercive power, which Jesus has bestowed upon 

Her, against the obstinacy of the heretics?) 2. 

– Pius X, in order to protect the “catechesis” from the manipulation 

of the Modernists, had wanted a basic catechism, one for the 

entire Church; but Paul VI ostracized St. Pius X’s catechism, and 

wanted “pluralism” in the catechesis, too; and he proved scandalously 

tolerant with the heretical “Dutch Catechism”, making it 

2 Today, the Holy Office is called “Holy Congregation For the Doctrine of 

Faith”, which no longer condemns, and only issues, occasionally, some “Notes” 

(which few read and no one cares about), to indicate some “error” amongst the 

many springing up and circulating freely in the “mare magnum” of the heresies. 

96

the archetype of all catechisms, more or less bizarre, which then 

mushroomed throughout the dioceses of the Church. 

And while Pius X had foiled the insidious tactic of the Modernists 

– whom presented their errors, “scattered and linked” – denouncing, 

with his “Pascendi”, those dangerous “novelties” as “an 

authentic, well-organized system of errors”, Paul VI, instead, 

brutally revealed his Modernist side, when there came the LXX anniversary 

of that great Encyclical of St. Pius X, through the Mass 

Media (Vatican Radio of September 4, 1977 and the Osservatore 

Romano of September 8, 1977), which defined “Pascendi” a “revelation” 

of Modernism, “not altogether historically respectful”. 

But Paul VI didn’t stop here! He let denigrate the anti-Modernist 

battle of St. Pius X, stating that “there lacked the knowledge or 

the will or the respectful courage of reading distinctions and differences 

in their own reality”. Hence St. Pius X would have been 

an idiot and a pusillanimous charlatan! 

That was thus the “commemoration” of that great Pope and 

Saint, which revealed, however, Montini’s soul, all his bitterness 

and his ever well-known typical Modernist trademark. And for that, 

Paul VI repudiated those wise and inspired documents of Pius X’s 

as they were “a rash pruning of sprouts then attempting to 

grow”, when, instead, they had revealed the nature of abundant 

“weeds”, rather than that of “sprouts”, which suffocated almost all 

the good wheat the Church had harvested in the preceding centuries. 

– Furthermore: Pius X, in order to hinder the advance of Modernist 

rationalism in the Biblical exegesis, had given stability to the 

“Pontifical Biblical Commission”, wanted by Leo XIII, and, with 

the “Motu Proprio” of November 18, 1907, had decreed that 

«All are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions 

of the Pontifical Biblical Commission relating 

to doctrine, which have been given in the 

past and which shall be given in the future, in 

the same way as to the Doctrinal Decrees of the 

“Holy Congregation”, approved by the Pontiff». 

Today, however, this obligation of conscience is no more, as 

Paul VI had reduced this “Pontifical Biblical Commission” into a 

section of the powerless – not to say useless – “Holy Congregation 

97

for the Doctrine of Faith”. The evidence is in the fact that the Congregation 

has never since issued any “Decrees”. 

Moreover, on May 7, 1909, Pius X established the “Pontifical 

Biblical Institute” in Rome, in order to shield the scholars of Science 

of the Scriptures in the Biblical field from Modernism, . But 

today, unfortunately – and precisely because of Paul VI – this Institute 

is a nest and a breeding ground for Modernists amongst the 

most corrupt in the Church. It is appropriate to recall that, in 1964, 

Paul VI called the Jesuits Zerwik and Lyonnet, whom the Holy 

Office had condemned and expelled to the “Biblical” [Institute]. 

– Pius X, in order to ensure a “formation of the Clergy” that 

would be doctrinally orthodox, wanted the “Regional Seminaries”, 

and issued scholarly “Norms for the educational and disciplinary 

system of Italy’s Seminaries”. But Paul VI, in order to destroy the 

Seminaries, entrusted the “Congregation for Catholic Education” 

(and thus also for the Seminaries) to the liberal Cardinal Garrone, 

whom, at the Council, had launched a fierce attack precisely 

against the Regional Seminaries, and later, as the “Prefect” of that 

Congregation, shut it down! 

And in order to consolidate the ecclesiastical community, Pius X 

had proceeded with the unification of the ecclesiastical laws through 

the “Canon Law Code” (later promulgated by Benedict XV); but 

Paul VI, shortly after, (thus without any necessity) called for a 

“New Code”, which opened the doors to Modernist principles. 

And while Pius X had staunchly condemned inter-confessionalism 

[ecumenism] as it is harmful to the Faith of the Catholics and generates 

indifferentism, Paul VI, instead, wanted that scatterbrained 

Modernist “ecumenism” that Pius X had already called a: 

98 

«Charity without Faith, quite soft on misbelievers, 

which gives way to all , unfortunately, the 

way to eternal ruin». 

But Montini, Archbishop at Milan, in 1958, had said, already: 

«The boundaries of orthodoxy do not coincide 

with those of pastoral charity» (?!). 

Was the “pastoral”, then, to him, beyond Faith?

Be that as it may, it is a fact that Paul VI has always refused to 

condemn even those theologians who had gone as far as denying the 

divinity of Christ. And it is a fact that he let some bishops attack the 

doctrinal encyclicals without reproaching or removing them!.. 

– And it is a fact that he himself used a “style” of non-condemnation 

even in important and solemn documents, in which he 

used restrictive formulas, however, so as to invalidate any normative 

character. So did he with his “Creed”; so did he with the “Humanae 

Vitae”, away with obligations and punishments. 

– For what reason did he demolish, as it were, some encyclicals 

of his predecessors that had openly condemned Communism, 

Modernism, and Freemasonry? 

– What is the reason for his scandalous passivity before the 

“Dutch schism”, allowing “errors” to spread throughout the 

Catholic world? 3 

– Why his “inaction”, before the diffusion of so many heretical 

“catechisms”, before an “ideological pluralism” in forms, 

ideas, and rites, under the convenient label of “pastoral”, or of cultural 

broadening, in order that every truth, every dogma, every certainty 

might be repudiated; even though in his exhortations, occasionally, 

he affected to be calling to order? Paul VI, in any case, not 

only always refused to condemn, but also stood in the way of any 

condemnation, placing even in high offices true and genuine advocates 

of heresies, such as, for example, Küng, whom he personally 

defended 4. 

– That is why he never wanted to condemn the heretic, Teilhard 

de Chardin, whom, on the contrary, he occasionally cited and 

subtly praised. 

– And that is why he let the Holy See be challenged upon the 

most important points of the Faith, without reactions on his part. 

– And that is why he threw away all of Tradition, with 

shrewdness, “destructions” and “reconstructions” made “in 

stages”, introduced, at first, “ad esperimentum”, out of special or 

personal interest, to be soon reconfirmed or promulgated. 

3 “Live Church”, 1972, issues 8, 9, 10, 11, and 13. 

4 “Corriere della Sera”, August 10, 1978, p. 4. 

99

– And that is why he diminished “ministerial Catholic priesthood”, 

bringing it closer to the ministry of the “Protestant Pastors”. 

– And that is why he let the seminarians travel to Taizé, 

where Protestant and Calvinist cults are also celebrated; and he continued 

to welcome their Leaders, such as Schutz and Thurian and 

even others, as if they had been authentic “ministers”. 

– And that is why he allowed many theologians to continue to 

demolish “ministerial priesthood”, less and less distinguished 

from the “priesthood” of the laity 5. 

– And that is why he wanted that “Reform of the Seminaries”, 

which cries out for vengeance before Christ the Priest. 

– And that is why he allowed (nay, he wanted!) that the habit 

be replaced with civilian clothing, with all the consequences that 

this has brought about (and it is still bringing about). 

– And that is why he eliminated the Tonsure, the Ostiariate, 

the Exorcistate, and the Subdiaconate (September 15, 1972), that 

is to say, all of the Minor Orders. 

– And that is why he wanted, categorically wanted, his Change 

of the “Traditional Mass”. 

– And that is why he let the psychosis of the “woman-priest” 

spread, although he later had to say that it could not have been (as 

of yet), letting cardinals and bishops, however, continue to publicize, 

that idea undisturbed. 

– And that is why he admitted the possibility of accepting 

“married priests”. 

– And that is why he allowed co-celebrations of “Anglican 

Pastors” at the Vatican. 

– And that is why he allowed some Protestants to receive the 

Eucharist. 

– And that is why he allowed Holy Communion to be distributed 

into the hands and that the “Holy Species” could be placed 

5 Cardinal Willebrands’s rash statement, in an interview upon his joining the Conclave, 

and broadcast by RAI [Italy’s public TV Network] at 7.00 a.m. on August 

14, 1978, precisely on this subject: the Church of tomorrow should accept married 

priests, etc. 

100

in breadbaskets and even distributed by girls in miniskirts. 

– And that is why he let pass and authorized “open Communions”, 

that is, that Protestants could participate in the Communion 

during Catholic Mass, and that Catholics could participate in the 

Protestant “Supper”. 

– And that is why he abolished “Latin” in the Liturgy, forcing 

the use of national languages and even dialects (eliminating, in 

this way, catholicity), and similarly ruined sacred music (we have 

tom-toms, at St. Peter, as well as rock music), and emptied our 

churches of all that is sacred, and had the “altars” turned facing the 

people (counter to the “Humani Generis”), in the fashion of the tables 

for the Protestant “Suppers”. 

And thus he turned the Church into a sort of “Political Party”, 

and turned “religion” into a sort of lively Center (melting pot) of 

integral humanism, “as he wanted to build a world wherein 

every man, no matter what his race, religion or nationality, can 

live a fully human life” 6. 

In simple terms, Paul VI’s “religion” became, as it were, the 

“servant” of the world, since “religion must be renovated”… 

(August 12, 1960), since all religions are equal, serving only for the 

purpose of fraternizing in the temporal sphere. 

Hence Paul VI allowed the demolition of dogmas, as these 

were a hindrance to brotherhood. He allowed the Sacraments to be 

obscured and the Commandments to be weakened, as these were 

too inflexible. In brief: He allowed the whole institution of the 

Church to crumble to the ground. 

Utopia or apostasy? 

Idolater of science, or pseudo-science, He made a cult of it. 

– That is why he spoke, terrorized, by the continuous growth 

of world population, seconding, in this manner, the Masonic-Capitalist 

campaign behind “Birth Control”. 

– That is why he received Doctor Barnhard (the first physician 

to perform a heart “transplant”) even before studying the 

moral aspects of this practice. 


101

– That is why he sang the praises to the man on the moon. 

– With his “revisions”, with his “adaptation” to the world, he 

emptied seminaries, religious novitiates, gave the Church leftist 

“trade unionist priests”, reduced the message of the Cross to a 

vile humanism. It was he, in fact, who wanted the revision and 

modernization of all the Constitutions of Religious Orders and 

Institutes, bringing about destruction, disorder, anarchy, and chaos. 

– He destroyed every Catholic organization: A.C., FUCI, oratories, 

and traditional parish associations. 

– He abandoned the “Tiara”, symbol of Pontifical power 

(donating it to Milan, but then losing it in the United States). 

– He abolished the “Pastoral”. 

– He wore, on his chest, the “Ephod” of Hebrew High Priest. 

– He handed the Insignia of St. James to the Orthodox. 

– He democratized all the institutions of the Church. 

– He spread and wanted the concept of “democracy” in all of 

the institutions of the Church, although it [concept of democracy] 

had been condemned by the past Magisterium (such as Vatican I 

(DS 3115); such as St. Pius X in “Sillon”), thus weakening the 

monarchical power, of divine right, in the Church. 

– He introduced 15 women into the Council, and later on 70 

more into the Vatican offices, 7 of which in the Holy See’s most 

delicate Offices, in direct contact with the Pope. 

– He always refused to receive groups of seculars and priests 

that were faithful to Tradition (thus creating, himself, new forms of 

schism), whereas he always sent out his “Blessings” to all the others, 

non-traditionalists. 

– He always received Freemasons, Communists, Modernists, 

protesters and leftists of any kind. 

– He received, without reactions, the movie star “Cardinale” 

[1967: Paul VI received actress Claudia Cardinale and Antonella 

Lualdi, first miniskirts ever to enter the Vatican], in miniskirt; and 

girls in shorts and “hot pants”; all in a special audience, declaring 

himself altogether “Mindful of certain values that you are 

pursuing: spontaneity, sincerity, liberation from certain formal 

and conventional ties, the necessity of being oneself and to live 

and to interpret the issues of one’s own times” 7. 

– He received the scandalous hippies and beatnik singers, and 

pop bands, in blue jeans, long and disheveled hair, ragged T-shirts 

102

and coats. 

– He received Marcellino de Santos, head of the assassins who 

murdered even a Missionary Father and the inhabitants of Mueda 

(Mozambique); and he gave his blessing to the murderer Cabrol, 

of Guinea, and to Agostinho Neto, Leader of Terrorism in Angola, 

etc. 

*** 

All in all, he made a relentless show of his will to break with 

the Church of the past. Even his inconsiderate relegation of octogenarian 

Cardinals, forbidding them from entering the Conclave 

for the election of the Pope, concealed his “mens” [mind] of eliminating 

from the Conclave all those members who would not be favorable 

to his own line of “revision” of his “new Church”. 

He wanted the resignation of the Bishops, making it mandatory 

at 75 years. 

– He created the “Episcopal Conferences”, without defined 

power limits. 

– He eliminated major figures in the Church, placing in many 

posts of command progressive and liberal-Freemasonic figures. 

– He abolished many holy days of obligation. 

– He wrote off abstinence from meat on Fridays. 

– He opened the way, with his silence, to the obsession of sexual 

relations in Catholic schools. 

– He let the doors open to all kinds of protests. 

– He issued a “Decree” for “mixed marriages”, without mandating 

Catholic Baptism of their offspring! 

– He attempted to abolish traditional “cloistered life”, even 

though he masked his position, on the outside, with favorable expressions. 

– He dispatched Cardinal Willebrandt, as his “Legate”, to the 

Lutheran Assembly of Evian (September, 1970) to sing Luther’s 

praises. 

– He performed that incredible gesture of throwing himself 

7 “Il Tempo”, April 14, 1971. 

103

down on his knees and kissing the feet of Metropolite Melitone, envoy 

of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Demetrius. 

– He destroyed the so-called “triumphalism” in the Church, in 

the name of the slogan: “The Church of the Poor”, which, in reality, 

is but a caving in to the Secular-Masonic-Marxist mind in our 

times. 

– Under his Pontificate, the Vatican accredited the first 

“woman-ambassador”, Miss Bernardette P. A. Olowo (not even 28 

years old). 

– He blessed the “Pentecostals”, dancing and screaming at St. 

Peter. 

– He – still Archbishop of Milan – opened up the “Secret 

Archives of the Curia” to search for documents regarding the 

“Monaca di Monza” [Nun of Monza, made famous by Alessandro 

Manzoni’s novel, “The Betrothed”], which was a basis for a novel 

and a film (as if he had been unable to determine the moral harm 

this would cause). 

– His was the clamorous “absolution” to the Graham Greene’s 

book, “The Power and the Glory”, a longstanding entry in the Index. 

– He multiplied the “disobedient” in every sector, granting 

them his tolerance, such as the “ACLI”, the “small groups”, the 

“base communities”, the “Catholics for Socialism”, the “Fourth 

of November” movement, the “working priests”, the adherents to 

the “Red Christ” of the Italian Socialist party (PSI); that is, a total 

landslide to the left. 

We may conclude that he ditched all that sustained the Church 

and Christian Europe: authority, hierarchy, discipline, family, 

teaching, Catholic university, regular and secular clergy, parishes. 

He declassed the Sacraments, and imposed bogus liturgical 

reforms. 

It is a “fact” that, in his speeches – in an almost edifying manner 

– the “new” always prevails upon the traditional. But his 

ability was to always slip in, after a witticism or an anti-progressive 

reasoning, an additional piece encouraging the progressives. 

It is similarly a “fact” that his hetero-praxis [Hetero-praxis is 

any practice that a person or a group does or could do which implies 

that one or more Catholic doctrines are not true i.e. Communion in 

the hand] provoked a doctrinal change, though not expressed in a 

doctrinal way. 

104

In conclusion, we narrate this eloquent episode: the nephew of 

professor Dietrich von Hildebrand, Doctor Sattler, Ambassador to 

the Holy See, in July, 1968 told the Hildebrands that Paul VI had 

said to them: «It is my hope, during my reign, to achieve the 

“reconciliation” between Catholics and Protestants». The Ambassador 

was quite troubled. He kept on saying: «He said “reconciliation”, 

not “conversion”!» 

*** 

This was the real face of Paul VI. This was his Pontificate. Just 

as he had always been considered a “progressive”, even before becoming 

a pope, he then became the victim of his own boldness. 

One has only to recall his steadfast opposition, at the Council, 

of the “Coetus Internationalis Patrum”, as he never stopped 

supporting the liberal bishops. 

And just consider his silent attitude before the internal demolition 

of the Church and his fiery perseverance in destroying 

the Catholic Nations (Italy, Spain, etc.). 

And it should not slip one’s mind his other “silent” behavior indicative 

of his liberal, Modernist-progressive mind: When the 

“divorce” legislation was approved in Italy, Paul VI was in Sidney 

(Australia). He was promptly informed, and he said he was expecting 

it; He was sorry for the harm it would cause the family, and for 

the reason that it was in breach of a provision of the Concordat. As 

for “sin”, however, ne verbum quidem [not a single word]! 

*** 

I could go on and on with so many other “facts” and “words” 

of Paul VI’s, clearly indicative of what an authentic liberal-Modernist 

he had been. 

On June 30, 1968, in order to dispel suspicions as to his “Modernism”, 

Paul VI, at St. Peter Square, for the closing of the Year of 

the Faith, made a solemn “Profession of Faith”, which appeared as 

the “New Creed”, an antidote for the “New Catechism”. 

And yet reading closely his writing, one could see that Paul VI 

had, yes, taken up the old Creed of Nicea, but had also inserted into 

it some points of a more recent Catholic doctrine. 

105

There was a burst of enthusiasm for that “Creed” 8, but - a 

“but” is really a must - Paul VI had prefaced the text of his formulation 

of the act of Faith, with two clarifications: The first, that 

he intended to fulfill “the mandate Christ entrusted to Peter”, 

and provide “a firm testimony of the divine truth entrusted to 

the Church”; and this was perfectly all right. But, with a second 

clarification, he put everything back into question, as he excluded, 

expressly, that his Creed was “a dogmatic definition” in the 

strict sense of the word. 

In his own words: 

106 

«… We are about to make a profession of faith, 

to utter a creed, which, without being a dogmatic 

definition in the strict sense of the word 

(!!), and despite some developments sought-after 

by the spiritual conditions of our time…». 

Now, that is a very serious fact, a deliberate misconstruction, 

for every object-proposition of the “Creed” constitutes “revealed 

truths, of divine Faith and of Catholic faith”, attested in the 

Scriptures, in the Apostolic Tradition (e.g. the two sources of 

Revelation) and defined by the Infallible Magisterium of the 

Church. Hence truths of Catholic Faith. 

What then? Was it his umpteenth clever action in order to hide 

his real mind? Was it shielding himself from the critics, since he had 

failed to condemn the “Dutch Catechism?” (Shortly after, in fact, 

he had himself photographed together with the famed Dutch Dominican 

heretic Father Schillebeeckx, co-author of that illfamed 

catechism). 

Be it as it may, a strange silence followed the “Creed” of 

Paul VI. In lieu of a plebiscite of adhesions without reservations, on 

the part of the official ruling Catholic world, there was no open and 

uttered consent. 

*** 

8 For example, on the “Osservatore Romano” of August 31, 1968 – article by 

Jean Daniéleu.

I conclude by saying that what I reported of his “remarks” and 

“deeds”, is more than sufficient, I think it is enough to dishonor his 

Pontificate by thinking of him as of a “new Honorius”. 

Namely, when Pope Leo II confirmed the anathema of the VII 

Ecumenical Council of Constantinople against pope Honorius, he 

had only said this: 

«With Honorius, who did not, as he became the 

Apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of 

heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered 

it by his negligence». 

Now, this imputation can also definitely be brought against Paul 

VI. Like Honorius, in fact, he too “fomented heresy through his 

negligence” and, perhaps, even worse than pope Honorius, through 

his approval. Yes, for Paul VI continued to see to that “self-destruction” 

of the Church, which he, himself, had denounced, in 

spite of being its author, and which he, himself, had carried forward 

with those “men of the Church” whom he, himself, had placed and 

maintained in key positions. 

Regrettably, today, we are still suffering those sorrowful years 

of his pontificate, which might be defined as one of the worst periods 

of the long history of the Church. The consequences are there 

for all to see: the Faith gone; the true Liturgy destroyed; the Eucharistic 

cult humiliated; sound theology in shambles; the 

Sacraments no longer inspiring trust, for their significance has been 

distorted; the Mass that has become a communal gathering; the 

Catechism devoid of dogma; the children themselves that have lost 

respect for sacred things; and thousands of them are no longer baptized, 

because of the quaint ideas of many priests; and the prayers 

for the dead that have been disposed of due to a trivial and ugly 

liturgy. 

At this juncture, to reform this Church, leprous with heresy and irreverence, 

what is needed is a Divine Intervention, since a true Reformation 

would have to set out with restoring the Altar of the 

“Sacrifice” (which is not the “table” of the Protestant “Supper” 

imposed, by now, even in Catholic churches), since only from the 

true Altar comes unity; and only there “Truth” is affirmed, and 

from thence alone can spread true Charity. 

107

108 

AGAINST THE “MODERNISM” 

– «Many false prophets will arise and deceive many». (Mt 24, 11) 

– «If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you 

don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself». (St. Augustine) 

– «There being an imminent danger for the faith, prelates must be 

questioned, even publicly, by their subjects». (St. Thomas) 

– «Especially when the danger is imminent, the truth must be publicly 

preached, nor should one do the contrary out of fear that 

someone be scandalized!». (St. Thomas) 

– «Be strong! We must not yield where we must not yield ... We 

must fight, not mincing words, but with courage, not in secret 

but in public, not behind closed doors, but open». (St. Pius X) 

– «They have hatred towards everything that is traditional and sacred». 

(St. Pius X) 

– «The partisans of error are to be sought not only among the 

Church’s open enemies; but, what is to be most dreaded and deplored, 

in Her very bosom». (St. Pius X) 

– «Not to oppose error, is to approve it, and not to defend truth is 

to suppress it». ( Pope Felix III) 

– «Let it be far from any one’s mind to suppress for any reason 

any doctrine that has been handed down. Such a policy would 

tend rather to separate Catholics from the Church than to bring 

in those who differ». (Pope Leo XIII) 

– «If I have against me all the Bishops, I have with me all the 

Saints and Doctors of the Church». (St. Thomas)

Above: So, is this what the new priests wear? (From: 

“Seminar” - Treviso (Italy) 15.12.1979). 

Right: The Rev. Dr. Moriary Frederick, a Jesuit professor 

at Woodstock College, celebrating Holy Mass on a 

simple table and wearing only a stole. 

Below: Fr. Thomas Coyle, pastor of the Catholic University 

of St. Paul Parish in Madison, Wis. concelebrated 

the Mass in a chapel of the University of Wisconsin, 

with Sister Alla Bozarth-Campbell, one of the 11 irregularly 

ordained women as Episcopal priests in Philadelphia, 

in 1974. 

Bottom right: A pastoral deviation again!

Above: “Performing the Truth in Love”. Published in “Carmel Life” in June ‘79. 

And this picture gives us an essay... What fools! 

Below: Priests performing a dance at the end of a Mass celebrated after a regional conference 

of “Charismatic Renewal” in Augusta, Ga.

Above: Sister... “Relaxing” 

Bottom left: Sister in... “Blue Jeans”. 

Bottom right: A picturesque image, in the USA, the Shepherd who leads people to Christ!

114 

«Freemasonry: Here is the enemy». 

(Leo XIII, “Humanum Genus”)

CHAPTER IV 

HIS “OPENING TO FREEMASONRY” 

The Catholic Church has always condemned this “Masonic 

sect”, denouncing its “secrets” in the process. 

Jacques Mitterand, former Grand Master of the “Grand Orient” 

of France, made admission of it. In his work, “The Policy of 

the Freemasons”, he wrote: 

«The Catholic Church did not mistake the importance 

of the event… With the Bull “In Eminenti”, 

Pope Clement XII pronounced, in 1738, 

the excommunication of the French Freemasons, 

denouncing the “secret” that surrounded 

them and their operations» 1. 

After 1738, all of the Pontiffs renewed those “admonitions” and 

those “sanctions”. Here are their major encyclicals on that theme: 

“PROVIDAS” of Benedict XIV, on May 18, 1751; 

1 Clement XII, “In Eminenti”, p. 45. 

115

“QUO GRAVIORA”, Apostolic Constitution of Leo XII, on 

March 13, 1820; 

“ECCLESIAM” of Pius VII, against the “Carbonari” [“coalburners”; 

secret revolutionary society founded in early 19th century 

Italy, and organized in the fashion of Freemasonry] on September 

13, 1821; 

“TRADITI” of Pius VIII, on May 24, 1829, confirming the previous 

“anathemas”; 

“QUI PLURIBUS” of Pius IX, on November 9, 1846; 

“QUIBUS QUANTISQUE” of Pius IX, on November 9, 1849; 

“HUMANUM GENUS” of Leo XIII, on April 20, 1884; 

“PASCENDI” of St. Pius X, on September 8, 1907. 

116 

*** 

Benedict XIV blessed Monsignor Jouin for his work: “Against 

the Sects That are the Enemies of Religion”. 

Pius XII, on July 24, 1958, denounced, as the roots of modern 

apostasy, Scientific Atheism, Dialectic Materialism, Rationalism, 

Secularism, and their common mother: FREEMASONRY 2. 

Pope John XXIII, in 1960, reminded the Roman Synod: 

«As for the Masonic sect, the faithful must keep 

in mind that the penalty stipulated by the 

Canon Law Code (canon 2335) is still in effect» 3. 

The approach of the Church, then, up until the Vatican II, was always 

clear and coherent. The condemnation of Freemasonry was because 

of its tendency to destroy the religious order and the Christian 

social order, even if it presents itself under the mask of tolerance 

and respect of the others. Its real aim, however, is that of rebuilding 

society on a new basis, excluding Our Lord Jesus Christ, in 

order to achieve a universal religion, according to the principle of 

democracy. 

2 Ploncard D’Assac: “The Secret of the French Freemasons”, p. 226-227. 

3 Idem.

In fact, ever since that sect was able to operate, there were, in 

France, five revolutions (1789-1830-1848-1870-1945), four foreign 

invasions (1815-1870-1914-1940), two spoliations of the 

Church; the expulsion of the Religious Orders; the suppression 

of Catholic schools; the secularization of the institutions (1789 

and 1901)… 

And yet, today, one still hears – irresponsibly! – that Freemasonry 

has changed, hence no longer deserving of condemnation. But 

that is a bogus statement. Even prior to Vatican II, the Roman documents 

were more than explicit. For example: 

«Freemasonry of the Scottish rite falls under 

the condemnation issued by the Church against 

Freemasonry in general, and there is no reason 

to grant any discrimination in favor of that category 

of Freemasons» 4. 

«Since nothing has come about that would solicit 

a change, in this matter, in the decisions of 

the Holy See, the provisions of the Canon Law 

retain their full validity, for any type of 

Freemasonry what-so-ever» 5. 

On January 5, 1954, the Holy Office condemned a work by the 

Grand Master of Austrian Freemasonry. On February 20, 1959, the 

Plenary Assembly of the Argentinian Cardinals, Archbishops, 

and Bishops, published a “Statement” recalling the formal condemnation 

from Pope Clement XII through to St. Pius X, and underscored 

that Freemasonry and Marxism pursue one and the same 

aim. Unfortunately, with Vatican II, the Church modified Her 

course. The Freemasons, themselves, were prompt to observe it: 

«The Council of Rome (Vatican II), in its second 

session, let transpire a great diplomatic 

movement of the Church in the direction of 

4 “Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office”, 1946. 

5 Same petition, April 20, 1949. 

117

118 

Freemasonry. The approach of the Church does 

not surprise the French Freemasonry’s leaders, 

who had long been expecting it and believed to 

have traced, rightly or wrongly, in the works of 

M. Alec Melior and in the conferences of Father 

Riquet (a Jesuit), the preliminary efforts toward 

a preparation of the mentality» 6. 

This “new direction” of the Church was confirmed by Freemason 

Yves Marsaudon 7 in a book of his published at the conclusion 

of the Council: 

«When Pius XII decided to direct personally the 

very important Ministry of Foreign Affaires, 

Monsignor Montini (sent to Milan) did not receive 

the purple. It thus became, not canonically 

impossible, but traditionally difficult that upon 

the death of Pius XII, he could accede to the 

Supreme Pontificate. But then came a man 

whom, like his Precursor, called himself John, 

and then it all began to change… 8. If some small 

islands still exist, not too distant, in the mind, 

from the times of the Inquisition, they would be 

forcibly drowned in the high tide of Ecumenism 

and Liberalism, one of the tangible consequences 

of which shall be the lowering of the 

6 J. A. Faucher - A. Ricker: “History of Freemasonry in France”, p. 469. 

7 Baron Marsaudon was a “thirty-third” honorary “commendatore “ of the 

Supreme Council of France (Grand Lodge) and Distinguished Minister of the 

Supreme Military Order of Malta. He had been well acquainted with Monsignor 

Roncalli when this was Nuncio at Paris. It is certain, in any case, that Monsignor 

Roncalli had no diffidence toward Freemasonry, as he demonstrated, for example, 

when, having become Pope, he received a telegram of congratulations from a 

Lodge on his 80th birthday, and as his stance demonstrated, in this regard, during 

the Roman Synod of 1960. 

8 Marsaudon: “Ecumenism Viewed By a Freemason of Tradition”, p. 42.

spiritual barriers still dividing the world. It is 

with all our heart, we wish the success of John 

XXIII’s “revolution”» 9. 

And so, the “new” approach of the Church was the change of 

course by Vatican II, guided formerly by John XXIII, and subsequently 

by Paul VI, which adopted ecumenical and liberal positions 

toward Freemasonry, even though for 250 years they had 

been utterly different. 

At this juncture, someone might ask himself: How is it that with 

Vatican II, there was such an “opening” to Freemasonry, when, 

prior to it, Freemasonry had always been judged the “number one 

enemy” of the Catholic Church? 

But anyone that followed the progress of Vatican II should 

know that “liberal” and “Modernist” bishops, not a few of whom 

belonged, if not “de facto”, ideologically, however, to Freemasonry, 

had taken it over. 

The “fact” was patent, for example, in Cardinal Achille Liénart, 

Bishop of Lille, who ruined Vatican II since its very first session, 

causing all of the Pontifical Commissions that had already prepared 

all the work and study plans, to be rejected. He acted under 

command of the “Masonic occultic power”. 

And yet, in France, it was no secret that his political ideas were 

redder than his habit, and that he also belonged to Freemasonry; that 

his “initiation” had taken place in 1912; that he “received the 

light” at Cambrai; that he frequented three Lodges at Lille and one 

at Valenciennes, and then two more at Paris, “reserved for Parliamentarians”; 

and that, in 1924, he was elevated to the 30 th degree 

and made “Kaddosh Knight” 10. As one can see, a “curriculum vitae” 

of a Freemason Bishop-Cardinal that is quite eloquent as to 

the weight he had in the Council. 


10 The Freemason Monsieur B., (healed at Lourdes on July 19, 1932, whose healing 

was recognized by the “Bureau des Constatations” on July 18, 1933), narrated 

that, at the time he frequented the Lodges, he used to meet there with Cardinal 

Liénart. 

119

Therefore, it would not be out of place if we also recall his cry, 

on his deathbed: “Humainement, l’Eglise est Perdue!” 11. 

But then, what could we say of Paul VI as to that Jewish-Masonic 

occupation that, throughout his Pontificate and during Vatican 

II, was, as it were, flanked by that dark shadow that dominated it? 

From many places and at different times, in an objective manner, 

even fierce, at times, it was insinuated that Paul VI – according to 

experts of heraldry and nobility – descended from converted Jews 12, 

and had been “initiated” by the B’nai B’rith Lodge, and that he always 

entertained good relations with Freemasons and Jewish circles 

13. 

Be that as it may, in order to shed a cloudless light upon this aspect 

of Paul VI’s personality, it would be appropriate to closely examine 

some of the “facts”. 

Specifically: 

1) Paul VI’s “obituary”, or funeral oration by the former 

Grand Master of “Palazzo Giustiniani” [Rome’s headquarters of the 

Grand Orient of Italy], Giordano Gamberini, made in “La Rivista 

Massonica” magazine is disconcerting. It reads: 

120 

«To us, it is the death of him who made the condemnation 

of Clement XII and of his successors 

fall. That is, it is the first time – in the history 

of modern Freemasonry – that the Head of the 

greatest Western religion dies not in a state of 

hostility with the Freemasons»! 

And he concludes: 

11 “Tradition - Information”, n. 7, p. 21. 

12 We cite, amongst the many: Paul Scortesco, “L’Eglise Condannée”, suppl. a 

“Lumiére” n. 148, 1976, p. 23 and subsequent; Leon De Poncins, “Christianisme 

et Franc-Maçonnerie”, “La Pensée Française” Editions, Chiré, p. 272, note 5. 

13 The “documentation” on the thought and “Masonic work” of Paul VI in 

“Forts dans la Foi”, Issues 46 and 47, year 1976, in the articles of the fathers Simon 

and Guérard des Lauriers.

«… For the first time in history, the Freemasons 

can pay respect to the tomb of a Pope, 

without ambiguities or contradiction» 14. 

In fact, having considered the events that took place under Paul 

VI’s Pontificate (such as to cause him to say that a “self-destruction” 

of the Church was afoot), one can perceive how it had been possible 

that Freemasonry could pay such a bombastic tribute to Paul VI. 

2) In a lengthy letter of the renowned Pauline Don Rosario F. 

Esposito, in “La Rivista Massonica” Magazine, to the former 

Grand Master Gamberini, it is said: 

«… Dear Gamberini, I appreciated, even in its 

Cartesian aloofness, your editorial on the death 

of the Pope» 15. 

And he continued revealing some “facts”, spanning from 1950 

to 1959, and which demonstrated Paul VI as a protagonist. 

Namely: between 1948 and 1950, the then Monsignor Montini said 

to Father Felix A. Morlion, OP, founder of “Pro Deo”: 

«Not a generation will pass and, between the 

two societies (Church and Freemasonry), the 

peace shall be sealed» 16. 

(But is the Church a… “society”?). In any case, that “peace” 

was ratified by the Holy Office in July of 1974, with a “letter”: 

“The letter of the Holy Office to Cardinal Krol bears the date of 

14 “La Rivista Massonica” ed., n. 5, July 1978, p. 290. 

15 “La Rivista Massonica” ed., n. 6, August 1978, p. 371-373. 

16 J. A. Ferrer, G. Caprile: “Freemasonry and Catholic Church”, p. 91. (On 

“Pastoral Life” of December 1974, Father Esposito had already hinted to the fact, 

without revealing, at the time, the name of the interlocutor of Father Morilion – 

as later did Monsignor Montini). 

121

July 19, 1974, thus the terms of “a generation” have been perfectly 

met 17. 

That “Letter” was from Cardinal Seper, Prefect of the Congregation 

for the Doctrine of Faith, with which, other than announcing 

a “new Canon Law Code”, he invited the Bishops, in 

dealing with the Freemasons, to follow the example of the North- 

European Bishops, which consisted in the “permit” granted by the 

Scandinavian and Finnish Bishops (and tolerated by the Vatican) to 

the Protestant Freemasons converted to Catholicism, to retain their 

status of Freemasons. 

Here is that text of the Danish, Norwegian and Swedish Bishops, 

published on the Official Bulletin of the Norwegian Episcopate, 

“Sankt Olaw” of June of 1967: 

122 

«The Scandinavian Episcopal Conference has 

decided, after lengthy and careful reflection, 

that the Bishops may allow, individually, the 

members of the Masonic Order of our Northern 

Nations wishing to embrace Catholicism, to 

be welcomed in the Church without renouncing 

their active membership in Freemasonry» 18. 

As one can see, this concession was in open contrast with 

Canon 2335 of the “Codex Juris Canonici” of St. Pius X, which 

established: 

«Nomen dantes sectae massonicae aliisve eiusdem 

generis associationibus quae contra Ecclesiam 

vel legitimas civiles potestates machinantur, 

contrahunt ipso facto excommunicationem 

Sedi Apostolicae simpliciter reservatam». 

[transation: Persons who have themselves enrolled 

in the Masonic sect, or in other associations of the 

17 “La Rivista Massonica”, n. 6, August 1978, p. 372. 

18 Georges Virebeau, “Prélats et Franc-Maçons”, Henry Coston Publisher, 1978, 

p. 92.

same kind which plot against the Church or the legitimate 

civil powers, incur ipso facto excommunication 

reserved simply to the Apostolic See.] 

In that “Letter”, besides, Father Esposito points out – on paper– 

other “facts” on Paul VI’s favoring of Freemasonry. Like the following: 

Paul VI “was not afraid to acknowledge that the Church had 

succumbed to excessive mistrust” toward the “Rotary Club”, an 

institution linked to Freemasonry 19. 

In addition to what Father Esposito wrote, we could add more 

significant “facts” and “remarks” as to the “mens” [mind] and 

conduct of Paul VI with regard to Freemasonry. 

– In a Masonic magazine it is said that the Grand Master Gamberini, 

on the very day of the announcement of Montini’s Papal investiture, 

said: “Here is our man!” 

– Carlo Falconi, writes in a book: «… et j’ajouterai que l’information 

que m’a comuniquée comme certaine un “trente 

troisiéme degré”, par ailleurs digne de foi, selon laquelle Montini 

serait inscrit dans une Loge maconnique, m’a toujours laissé 

très perplexe». 20 [I would add that the information I received from 

a certain 33 degree – also credible – that Montini was always enrolled 

in a Masonic Lodge- always leaves me very perplexed]. 

– In a private letter, written by a Freemason, friend of the 

renowned French writer, Count Léon de Poncins, an authority in 

Masonic issues, this passage appears: «…With Pius X and Pius 

XII, we Freemasons could do very little, but, avec Paul VI, nous 

avons vencu!» No need for translation! 

– Now, that Vatican II had also been controlled by liberal- 

Freemasons has been proven by the “fact” of the Freemason Cardinal 

Liénart, as we already noted. 

A head of Freemasonry, Minister of State of the Supreme Council 

of the Scottish Rite in France, Mr. Marsaudon, in his book: “Ec- 

19 “La Rivista Massonica”, n. 6, August 1978, p. 372. Paolo VI’s statement at an 

audience with the Rotaryans. 

20 From the French edition of “Vu et Entendu au Concile”, Ed. du Rocher, 1962. 

123

umenism From the Perspective of a Freemason of Tradition”, 

speaking of all Pope Montini had done, wrote: «One could really 

speak of a Revolution that from our Masonic Lodges has spread 

out magnificently, reaching the top of St. Peter’s Basilica». 

Was it not, perhaps, his “Liturgical Reform”, that was foreseen 

by the Freemason Roca in 1883? «The divine cult – had written 

Roca – in an Ecumenical Council shall undergo a transformation 

that will put it in harmony with the state of modern civilization» 

21. 

And why did Paul VI lift the “censures” 22 on Freemasonry, 

thus allowing the secular to join it (if at the discretion of one’s own 

Bishop)? And what right did he have to do that, after the more 

than 200 “documents” of the Magisterium condemning it? 

And so it was that the Grand Master Lino Salvini, in an interview 

on the eve of the assembly of the Grand Orient (March 18, 

1978), could say, “Our relations with the Vatican are excellent”. 

– And why was a portrait of Pius IX allowed… depicted as a 

Freemason, with an accompaniment of moral insults (his alleged illegitimate 

sons, etc.), left in display at Palazzo Braschi, in Rome, 

while no one, neither the Secretary of State, nor the Vicariate of 

Rome, nor the Osservatore Romano, ever reacted or protested? 

Even Cardinal Poletti, to whom I myself wrote a vibrant letter, did 

not condescend to send me a reply. [Ed. note: Pius IX was accused 

of being a Mason as the Masons in Roman made a portrait in which 

the pope was wearing Masonic signs. But this has been proved to 

be a Masonic trick. So, while leaving exposed… a portrait of Pius 

IX… with an outline of moral insults (his presumed sons etc…) 

They (the Vatican) wanted to slander the Pope to help their efforts 

to stop his beatification process.] 

– Thus Freemasonry, in Paul VI’s Church, was by now extremely 

visible, both in the “black lists” and in the actuation of 

“programs” in a strict Masonic style. 

– And how many “Masonic laws” have entered the Church un- 

21 “Mystère d’Iniquité”, p. 43 - Editions Saint-Michel, 53 Saint-Céneré - CCP 

Rennes 2074-79. 

22 C.D.C., art. 2335. 

124

der his Pontificate: divorce, abortion, separation between Church 

and State, degradation of Seminaries and Religious Congregations, 

parity of women, and so forth and so on. 

And while he always refused to receive the Catholics of Tradition, 

he continually welcomed, instead, the members of the Masonic 

Lodges, like, for example, those of the Jewish Masonic Lodge of 

the “B’nai-Brith”; like those of “L’Alliance Israélite Universelle”, 

which aims at achieving the union of all religions into one. 

Now, the identity of views of this “Masonic scheme” can be observed 

in the Masonic schemes of the UN, of UNESCO, as well as 

in his encyclical “Populorum Progressio”. Paul VI, in fact, speaks 

of a “world bank” backed by a “world Government”, which 

would be ruling thanks to a “synthetic and universal religion”. 

And on August 9, 1965, in regard to Judaism, Islamism, and 

Christianity, Paul VI had to say: 

«They are three expressions (?!!) professing an 

identical monotheism, through the three most 

authentic avenues…». 

And again: 

«Would it not be possible that the name of the 

very same God, instead of irreducible oppositions… 

generate a possible agreement… without 

the prejudice of theological discussions»? 

Sure it would be possible! So long as Christ “Son of God” is 

kicked out of the picture (for he does not exist in other religions), 

along with the Holy Trinity. 

– And what to say, then, of his “religion of man”, which he relentlessly 

advocated, as if that it is not a distinctive Masonic concept? 

And let us recall, once again, his visit to the UN (one of 

Freemasonry’s highest places), where, before reciting before the Assembly 

his humanist address (which any other Freemason might as 

well have uttered), Paul VI walked into the “Meditation Room”, 

the Masonic sanctuary, at the center of which stands “an altar for 

a faceless God”. Now, Paul VI had to know that “chamber of meditation” 

was… a Masonic Lodge. 

125

126 

*** 

But there are countless “facts” witnessing of his explicit collaboration 

with Freemasonry. 

– During his journey to the Holy Land (in 1954), on the Mount 

of Olives, at Jerusalem, he embraced the Orthodox Patriarch 

Athenagoras I, Freemason of the XXXIII degree. Then, on the 

eve of the closing of Vatican II, the pair lifted the mutual “excommunications“ 

launched in 1054. 

– On May 19, 1964, Paul VI constituted the “Secretariat for 

Non-Christians”, and so “Observers” and “Delegates” of the various 

non-Christian religions could enter the Council. At the Fourth 

Session, they already numbered 103. 

– Later on, Paul VI would give his “pastoral” and his “ring” to 

the Burmese Buddhist U’thant, Secretary General of the UN. 

– And on November 13, 1964, he would depose the “tiara” (the 

“triregno”) on the altar, definitively renouncing it. A gesture that 

was the objective of the “French Revolution”, and which brings 

to mind the words of the Freemason Albert Pike: 

«The inspirers, the philosophers, and the historical 

leaders of the French Revolutions had 

sworn to overthrow the “CROWN” and the 

“TIARA” on the tomb of Jacques de Molay» 23. 

However, this gesture of Paul VI’s was but the exteriorization of 

that which he had already manifested on December 7, 1965, at the 

conclusion of Vatican II, in the homily in which he said: 

23 Vol. II, p. 156. 

«Secular humanism, revealing itself in its horrible 

anti-clerical reality has, in a certain sense, defied 

the Council. The religion of the God who became 

man has met the religion - for such it is - of man 

who makes himself God. And what happened? 

Was there a clash, a battle, a condemnation? There

could have been, but there was none. The old story 

of the Samaritan has been the model of the spirituality 

of the Council. A feeling of boundless sympathy 

has permeated the whole of it». 

Now, apart from the “Samaritan” that has nothing to do with it 

(the “Good Samaritan”, in fact, stooped compassionately over a human 

being and not over a religion), here, instead, one can but remark 

that “the religion of man who makes himself God” is that 

same religion of Freemasonry, as the Grand Master of the “Grand 

Orient” of France Jacques Mitterand had clearly expressed, in 

one of his speeches, saying: 

«Teilhard de Chardin has committed the crime 

of Lucifer, for which the Freemasons have been 

much reproached by Rome: in the phenomenon 

of “humanization”, or, to use Teilhard’s formula, 

of the “Noosphere”, that is in that mass of consciences 

enveloping the globe, it is man that 

stands at the forefront. When this conscience 

reaches its apogee, the “Omega Point” – as Teilhard 

says – man is such as we wish him to be, 

free in the flesh and in the spirit. Thus Teilhard 

has elevated man to the altar, and, worshipping 

him, he could not worship God» 24. 

Man who makes himself “god”, therefore, commits Lucifer’s 

sin; he follows, that is, the counsel of the ancient Biblical serpent: 

“Thou shall be as gods”, and thus he learnt the rebellion to God. 

Now, that, in a nutshell, is the content of the philosophy of the Jesuit 

heretical theologian (?!) Teilhard de Chardin, sectarian 

Freemason of the Martinist Order 25. 

It must be noted that this Jesuit heretic was one of the “masters” 

of Vatican II, through, in particular, his disciple De Lubac, 

24 Cited by René Valnève: “Teilhard l’Apostate”, Volpe, 1971 edition, p. 52. 

25 “Chiesa Viva”, July-August 1993. 

127

whom, although banished by Pius XII 26, was reintegrated by John 

XXIII, who even called him as “consultant” at the Council. Paul 

VI, then, in closing the Thomist Congress, “in the hall of the 

Chancery, insisted that de Lubac speak of Teilhard de Chardin” 27. 

At this juncture, we also recall what the Pauline Father 

Rosario Esposito – author of reiterated professions of Masonic 

faith – wrote in his book: “The Great Concurrences Between 

Church and Freemasonry”, where, in the biographical index, he 

informs us that among the protagonists of the “bilateral dialogues” 

between exponents of the Church and Freemasonry, which took 

place between 1966 and 1977, was the Salesian Don Vincenzo Miano, 

secretary of the “Secretariat for the Non-believers” and author 

of a book titled: “The Secretariat for the Non-believers and 

Freemasonry”. Now, Don Miano participated in all those dialogues, 

“illustrating, afterward, the positions reached by the 

Holy Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith and Paul VI in person, 

who followed and encouraged these meetings” 28. 

No wonder, then, that Paul VI decided to have in the Executive 

Committee for a “Concordant Bible”, the Grand Master of the 

Grand Orient of Italy, professor Gamberini, who was amongst 

the founders of the “Gnostic Church of Italy”, in which he holds 

the position of “bishop”, under the pseudonym of Julianus. Now, the 

“Gnostic Church” is the “Satanist church”, officially founded, in 

France, in 1888, by the Freemason Jules Doinel. 

And what do we say of Paul VI when, on March 23, 1966, he 

put on the finger of Dr. Ramsey, secular and Freemason, Anglican 

Archbishop of Canterbury, his “new conciliar ring” and then imparted, 

together with him, the “blessing” to those present? 

And what do we say when, on June 3, 1971, he received in a 

public audience, at the Vatican, members of the “Masonic 

Lodge” of the B’nai B’rith, the most powerful Masonic Lodge, 

restricted to Jews? 

26 Encyclical “Humani Generis”. 

27 H. Urs von Balthasar: “Father Henri de Lubac”, Jaca Book, 1978 edition, p. 

20-21. 

28 Father Rosario Esposito, cited works, Nardini, 1987 edition, p. 420. 

128

And how do you explain that, through Cardinal Bea, the Freemasons 

managed to obtain, at the Council, the “Decree” on “Religious 

Freedom”, and exulted at the victory of “false ecumenism” and 

“collegiality”? Paul VI’s relentless, stealthy action had met their 

hopes: the advent of “democracy” in the Church, and, through it, 

the so much yearned-for realization of a “universal religion”, 

which was then set off with contracting, syncretistically, the “Ecumenical 

Movement” of Assisi. 

One further evidence lies in the words of Cardinal Franz 

Köenig, whom, closing a Convention, at Prague, on “The Operative 

Alliance Between Religion and Science”, said: 

«The best forces of humanity must converge toward 

a new cosmopolitism, which cannot be realized 

without a rediscovery of the spiritual values, 

capable of leading humanity toward an 

harmonious communal living» 29. 

Indeed, is the “Masonic presence”, perhaps, not distinctly visible, 

by now, even in the “Ecumenical Movement” and in the structures 

of the “World Council of the Churches”? 

But to those familiar with the Gnostic principle at the base of 

Freemasonry, the intrusion of Freemasonry in each and every 

“Church” will not certainly come as a surprise. 

In England, for example, the early statutes of the “Mother 

Lodge” were the work of an ecclesiastic, and ever since Anglicanism 

and Freemasonry have been enjoying a perfect marriage. But 

also the totalities of the Protestant “Monarchies” were, and still 

are, “Masonic”. The “Slavic Monarchy” and the “Orthodox 

Churches” are Masonic as well. 

And what about the Catholic Church? 

– The philosopher Augusto Del Noce, commenting on the topicality 

of Benson’s “Master of the World”, wrote: 

29 “Il Sabato” of November 24, 1990. 

129

130 

«(Catholicism is) re-incorporated into Masonic 

ecumenism, and in this sense Freemasonry can 

present itself, today, and so it does, as the most 

moderate of secularisms: Catholicism is not persecuted, 

but, in fact, re-incorporated. Under certain 

conditions, in unitary ecumenism a Catholic rite 

section may well subsist». 

In fact, the infiltration of Freemasonry even in the ordinary ecclesiastical 

structures has been ongoing for many years now, as the 

renowned (pro)-Mason, the “Pauline” Father Rosario Esposito, 

also affirms: 

«… Brothers active in organized Catholic groups, 

heading diocesan and regional groups of lay people 

committed to the Catholic Action, in Scouting; 

and Brothers enjoying the full confidence of the 

bishops, to the point that, in some cases, they are 

proactively collaborating in the drafting of documents 

and Pastoral Letters, in which no one has 

ever found to be doctrinal. 

Other collaborations are engaged in the operation of 

Catholic institutions and enterprises, such as educational 

institutes, hospitals, clinics, management of 

Charities and Philanthropic societies, which, from 

time immemorial, and even for recent constitution, 

include, in their executive Committees, the presence 

of the bishop and of managers of structures 

traditionally chaired by a Freemason» 30. 

Of this friendship between Paul VI and Freemasonry, let us see, 

as a sample, his official reception of a representation of the Jewish 

Freemasonry of the B’nai B’rith on June 3, 1971, in which he addressed 

them as “My dear friends”. 

30 Rosario Esposito, “The Great Concurrences Between Church and Freemasonry”, 

Florence, 1987, p. 387.

Is it credible that Paul VI ignored that the Jewish Freemasonry 

of the B’nai B’rith, in the United States, was (and still is) in a relentless 

struggle to wipe out all traces of Christian institutions? 31 

– On November 28, 1977, a dispatch of A.T.I. (Agenzia 

Telegrafica Giudea, or Jewish Telegraph Agency) informed that 

«The Conference of the Catholic Bishops and the “League 

Against Defamation” of the B’nai B’rith (ADL) announce the establishment 

of a common work group devoted to examining the 

issues relating to the faith of the Jews and of the Catholics» 32. 

– And on May 7, 1978, A.T.I. announced that on the coming 

May 10, Paul VI would be receiving the representatives of the 

B’nai B’rith, bearers of a 16 page “document” concerning the 

“Holocaust” 33. 

Freemasonry had thus not only entered the grass-root-Church, 

but also the echelon of the Vatican, both with clerics and secular. 

The siege is “closing-in round the throne of the Pope” 34. 

But that was nothing new. The penetration had been in progress 

for almost two centuries. John Paul II, for example, attributed the 

Pontifical suppression of the “Society of Jesus” to the work of 

Freemasonry 35. That means the “enemies” of the Church have always 

found the gates of the Vatican quite more than ajar 36. And that 

is even admitted into the highest levels 37. 

Father Raimondo Spiazzi, so writes, on the subject: 

31 Emmanuel Ratier, “Mystères et Secrets du B’nai B’rith”, Facta Edition, Paris 

1993. p. 105 and subsequent. 

32 A.T.I., Dispatch n. 1744, year 1977. 

33 “Lectures Françaises”, n. 254, June 1978, p. 6. The “B’nai B’rith” is the most 

powerful Masonic organization in the world, reserved exclusively to Jews. It entertained 

excellent relations with cardinal Bea, whom, together with Jules Isaac, 

revised Catholic thinking on the Jews (weekly “Look” of January 25, 1966; Léon 

de Poncins, all his works). 

34 “Il Sabato” of August 10, 1991, p. 25. 

35 Lucio Brinelli, in “Il Sabato” of October 6, 1990. 

36 “Il Sabato” of November 24, 1990; and “30 Giorni” of January 1991. 

37 Raimondo Spiazzi: “Cardinal Siri Archbishop of Genoa From 1946 to 

1987”, Bologna 1990. 

131

132 

«As to the Conclaves of the future, Siri used to 

say one should pray in order to obtain the grace 

that the prospective participants be truly free from 

any partisan influence and influx, not only of an 

ethical and political nature, but even social. And 

that no sect lay its hand onto these! [Conclaves] 

concluded he. He was referring to Freemasonry, 

which he claimed have knowledge, through direct 

confidences, received by affiliates, and knowing 

the schemes through which Freemasonry attempted 

to tighten its grip on men and organs of the Vatican, 

(He did not hesitate to name a few), and with 

the danger that threatened to extend its grip onto 

the Conclave. Perhaps it was also on the account 

of that, that he proposed the abolition of the secret: 

that all will take place in broad daylight!» 

Pope Albino Luciani, too, was aware of the Masonic danger 38. 

The Pope himself was quite controversial with the IOR [Institute for 

Religious Works; financial arm of the Vatican], at a time the “Corriere” 

[Corriere della Sera, Italy’s major daily] was in the hands of 

the IOR, and the P2 [outlawed P2 Masonic Lodge, of Grand Master 

Licio Gelli] chose its directors 39. Naturally, however, the IOR could 

not have acted without the guarantee of the Secretary of State. 

Regrettably, even the public and repeated admission of the 

Grand Master Salvini as to the current affiliation to Freemasonry 

of various “High Ecclesiastics” fell on deaf ears. 

In another “letter” to Giordano Gamberini, (then Grand Master 

of Italian Freemasonry), Don Rosario Esposito says: «A series of 

Paul VI’s decisions are an indiscriminate opening toward 

Freemasonry» 40. 

And the lawyer Mario Bacchiega, of Rovigo, professor of History 

of Religions at a Roman faculty (and running a broadcast for a 

38 “Il Sabato” of December 29, 1990. 

39 “Il Giornale” of 8 March 1991; of April 30, 1991. 

40 “Rivista Massonica”, August 1978, p. 371 and subsequent.

egional TV, explaining ideals and rites of the “Sons of the Light”), 

asked «What reliable testimonies exist as to the affiliation of Ecclesiastics 

to Freemasonry», replied: «I saw many clergymen at 

the Lodge, and never the lower clergy: they were always people 

of high office» 41. 

Speaking of the Vatican II, Lawyer Mario Bacchiega affirmed 

twice – in December of 1962 and in November of 1963 – that the 

bishop of the Mexican diocese of Quernavaca, Monsignor Sergio 

Mendez Arceo, intervened pleading that the “excommunication” 

of the Freemasons be dropped, as “by now there were many ecclesiastics 

affiliated” 42. 

And the former Grand Master of the “Grand Orient of 

Italy”, Giuliano Di Bernardo, on the “Corriere della Sera” of 

March 23, 1991, had said: «We will react to the attacks of the 

Pope; we have high Prelates in our midst». 

*** 

At this point the truthfulness of that “Pecorelli’s List” [Mino 

Pecorelli, director of “OP” (“Osservatorio Politico Internazionale”; 

or “International Political Observer”) Magazine, murdered for unveiling 

covert political and criminal schemes involving high ranking 

politicians, Freemasons, prelates, business, and organized crime] 

should come as no surprise. Even “Panorama” Magazine of August 

10, 1976, carrying its own list – pretending to sell it as unreliable – 

does not hesitate, however, to state, «If the list were authentic, the 

Church would be in the hands of the Freemasons. Paul VI 

would be altogether surrounded by them. Nay, they would have 

been his great electors and would then have directed him in his 

most important decisions during these 13 years of pontificate. 

And, prior to that, they would have been the ones to push Vatican 

II Council onto the path of reforms». 

All true – one would say – if one consider that the said “list” includes 

the names of two Cardinals (Villot and Casaroli) whom, in 

41 “Ecclesiasts in the Lodge” by Andrea Tornelli. 

42 Idem. 

133

point of fact, have been Secretary of State of the Holy See; and it 

also includes that of another Cardinal (Poletti) Paul VI appointed 

as Vicar of Rome, that is, as his own representative in the government 

of that diocese. 

And what to say, then, when that list also features as affiliated to 

Freemasonry other most authoritative Prelates, such as Cardinal 

Baggio and Cardinal Suenens and others? 

Let us see, here, at least the most important and closer collaborators 

of Paul VI: 

1st – Monsignor Pasquale Macchi 

Paul VI’s personal Secretary from 1954 to 1978. Now then, even 

his name is included in the “Pecorelli’s List”, amongst the “alleged 

Freemasons”, with each “entry” well detailed: Affiliation: 

23/4/1958; Registration: 5463/2; Monogram: MAPA. 

2nd – Cardinal Jean Villot 

I also will talk, in detail, in Chapter VII of this book about his 

affiliation to Freemasonry. He was for long years Paul VI’s Secretary 

of State, and later, up until his death (March 9, 1979), John 

Paul I’s and John Paul II’s. His name was also published in the 

monthly “Lectures Françaises”, among other ecclesiastics affiliated 

to Freemasonry. The Cardinal wrote a letter to the director of the 

Magazine, denying “any contacts at any time with Freemasonry”. 

But it is the typical denial every affiliate is bound to, especially 

in the higher degrees. But, as always, the truth will come out. 

Even for him, therefore, for he was betrayed just after his death, resurrecting 

among his things also a book titled: “Life and Perspective 

of Traditional Freemasonry”, by Jean Tourniac, “Grand Orator” 

of the Grand National Lodge of France”. On the book title 

page, appear two dedications, scribbled out to his name: one, of 

the author himself; the other, of the Grand Master of the same 

Lodge. 

That, too, is another “evidence” of what General G. Leconte, of 

the French “Secret Services”, and Officer Masmay (see Chapter 

VII) had stated to me; namely: «even the parents of the Freemason 

Cardinal Villot were Freemasons of the Rosecrucian Lodge». 

After all, his theological positions and his ideals were always in 

the sphere of the various cardinals and bishops that appear in the list 

134

of Pecorelli’s “Osservatorio Politico” (OP) Magazine, where he 

also reports his exact “data”: Affiliation: 6/8/1966; Registration: 

041/3; Monogram: JEANNI. 

3rd – Cardinal Agostino Casaroli 

He, too, appears in Mino Pecorelli’s list, with these “entries”: 

Affiliation: 28/9/1957; Registration: 41/076; Monogram: CASA. 

The Pauline, Father Rosario Esposito, in his book: “The Great 

Concurrences Between Church and Freemasonry” 43 refers that 

Casaroli, on October 20, 1985, on the occasion of the celebrations of 

the 40 th anniversary of the United Nations held, at St. Patrick’s 

Church, in New York, gave “a long-winded homily”, whose contents 

“confirm that the concurrences between the Church and 

Freemasonry may be considered actually achieved” 44. 

43 Rosario Esposito, “The Great Concurrences Between Church and Freemasonry”, 

Nardini Editions, Florence 1987. 

44 As above, p. 210. 

135

That Cardinal Casaroli is a “Freemason” is also proven by his 

excessive praise for the Jesuit heretic and Freemason Teilhard de 

Chardin, in an unspeakable “letter” he sent, on behalf of the Pope, 

to Monsignor Poupard, rector of Paris’ “Istitut Catholique”, on the 

occasion of the celebration of the centenary of Pierre Teilhard de 

Chardin’s birth. The Grand Master of the Grand Orient, Jacques Mitterand, 

in an address to the General Assembly of the Lodge held at 

Paris from September 3 to 7, 1967, had claimed that Freemasonry 

was the basis of Jacques Mitterand’s publications, and had openly 

said: «one fine day, there sprung up from their ranks a genuine 

scientist: Pierre Teilhard de Chardin», underscoring that «the 

ideas of the Jesuit Teilhard coincide with those of Freemasonry». 

Now, only a “Freemason” could have written such a “Letter”, 

giving body to a heretic apostate - mediocre scientist, mediocre 

philosopher, and mediocre theologian, – whom, to a Dominican 

friend (one who had in turn thrown away the habit), had manifested 

his plans of “renovation” of the Church in a neo-Modernist key. 

Counsel Ermenegildo Benedetti, former “Grand Orator” of the 

“Grand Orient of Italy” (thus “number two”, behind the Grand 

Master – who was then Lino Salvini – of Italian Freemasonry), also 

offered a further “evidence” of Casaroli’s affiliation to Freemasonry. 

In fact, on the weekly “OGGI” of June 17, 1981, speaking 

to the “Brothers” he had declared: «It was said of Monsignor Bettazzi, 

of Monsignor Casaroli (…). Let there be no doubt about 

it: that it was not mere talk; that it was ‘confidential information’ 

we at the top of Italian Freemasonry used to exchange». (I 

would have you note that “not mere talk”, but authentic “confidential 

information”). 

Finally, in confirmation that Cardinal Casaroli is a “Freemason”, 

I can note that even the present Pope, John Paul II, made 

admission of it. In fact, on October 15, 1984, I received the visit of 

an archbishop (with his secretary), close collaborator of the Pope. 

Among other things, he told me he had shown the Pontiff my article, 

“The New Concordat” (on “Chiesa Viva” n° 145), whose first 

signatory was in fact Cardinal Casaroli. Now, the Archbishop 

told me that he had remarked to the Pope that my article emphasized 

Cardinal Casaroli’s inclusion in the Masonic lists. The Pope, then, 

pounding three times his fist on the table, cried out: «I know! I 

know! I know!». 

136

4th – Cardinal Ugo Poletti 

He was Vicar of Rome, thus Paul VI’s representative in the 

government of the Diocese of Rome. He also appears on Mino 

Pecorelli’s “list” of “alleged Freemasons”, with detailed “entries”: 

Affiliation: 17/2/1969; Registration: 43/179; Monogram: UPO. 

5th – Cardinal Sebastiano Baggio 

He, too, is enrolled in the Masonic lists 45, with detailed “entries”: 

Affiliation: 14/8/1957; Registration: 85/2640; Monogram: 

SEBA. He was Prefect of the “Congregation for the Bishops”, 

and, therefore, in charge of the appointment of the new bishops, in 

spite of his alleged affiliation to the Masonic sect, hence he could 

flood dioceses worldwide with those affiliated to Lodges, or pro- 

Freemasons Figures. 

6th – Cardinal Joseph Suenens 

He too appears in the “Pecorelli’s list”, with detailed “entries”: 

Affiliation: 15/6/1967; Registration: 21/64; Monogram: IESU. 

I would have you note, moreover, that he was a most authoritative 

exponent of the “Pax Christi”, an organization in which political-social 

commitment overwhelms all of the religious commitment. 

It also proves his manifesto on disarmament of May of 1982, 

wherein God, Jesus, the Virgin Mary, and the Saints are not even 

mentioned, while the whole discussion is hinged on the prospect of 

“World Government”, or “Universal Republic” which Freemasonry 

has been longing for ever since its inception, as it is seen in 

the “Anderson’s Constitutions” of 1723, fundamental text of the 

whole Masonic sect. 

On September 24, 1970, Suenens had already held a conference, 

at a Masonic gathering, organized by the Jewish High Freemasonry 

of the B’nai B’rith, in which he had brought the Church closer to 

that Masonic sect which the pre-conciliar Church had always anathemized 

46. 

45 “Panorama”, “OP”, “Introibo”, “Lectures Francaises”, “Agenzia Euroitalia”. 

46 Yann Moncomble: “Les Professionels de l’Antiracisme”, by Yann Moncomble, 

Paris 1987, p. 277. 

137

It is no secret that he was also one of the great electors of Paul 

VI’s 47, whom, afterwards, promptly appointed him as “Moderator” 

of the Council. 

But Cardinal Suenens, for the nomination of Paul VI – which 

was preferred, agreeable, and determined – attended a sort of “pre- 

Conclave”, held at Grottaferrata, [a village on the outskirts of 

Rome, near the village of Castelgandolfo, where the Pontifical summer 

residence is located] in the villa of Umberto Ortolani, the famous 

member of Licio Gelli’s P2 Lodge 48. 

Congressman Andreotti, in his book: “A ogni morte di Papa” 

[literally: “At Every Pope’s Passing”; also Italian for saying “Once 

in a blue moon”], speaking of that gathering, recounts that one of 

the participants told him: «more or less seriously, that the canonical 

majority was already wrapped up» 49. 

7th – Bishop Annibale Bugnini 

Paul VI put him in charge of the implementation of the 

“Liturgical Revolution”, the one who Pope John XXIII had 

kicked out of the Pontifical University in which he was teaching. 

But Paul VI called him back, appointing him First Secretary of the 

“Concilium ad exequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia”, 

and, afterwards, Secretary of the “Congregation for the Divine 

Worship”. But when a Cardinal produced “evidence” of 

Monsignor Bugnini’s affiliation to Freemasonry 50 to Paul VI, he 

was forced to send him away from Rome (but why not dismiss 

him?) dispatching him as a “pro-Nuncio” to Teheran (Iran). 

In order to understand who this monsignor, Freemason and revolutionary 

of the Liturgy, really was, I would have you read what 

47 “30 Giorni” of July 7, 1992, p. 45. 

48 “30 Gironi” of September 3, 1993, in “His Eminence’s Friends” by Andrea 

Tornielli, p. 37, subtitled: “The Conclave at the Villa”. 

49 Also on the same subject, “The Non-Elected Pope” by Bennylai, Laterza, 

1993 edition, p. 202. 

50 Also the “list” of the freemasons, published by counsel and journalist Mino 

Pecorelli, on his “L’Osservatore Politico” magazine (“OP”), with dates and entries: 

Affiliation: 23/4/1963; Registration: 1365/75; Monogram: BUAN. 

138

“Avvenire” magazine – “Religious Information” (of February 24, 

1973, p. 5) reported: «(…) Two ceremonies (Mass for the students 

of the Catholic schools, and Mass of the youth)… also intended 

to be an example of liturgical experimentation, carefully studied 

and properly implemented: first, through sacred dances and an 

“Anaphora” [Eucharistic prayer of the Roman Rite] prepared 

for the occasion; then with the accompaniment of an authentic 

‘pop’ band. After attending the two liturgies, Monsignor Annibale 

Bugnini, Secretary of the Congregation for the Divine Worship, 

said it had been the highlight of the celebration; a great example 

of the ultimate solution for the problems that must be 

solved in the liturgical movement: the recovery in the liturgy of 

the traditional exterior sign of the sacred, such as dance, and the 

employment of new instruments and chants, adapted to the 

mentality of young people today». 

It was and is a “Masonic scheme”, destined to become a sad 

and distressing reality. 

8th – Bishop Paul Marcinkus 

He was President of the “Istituto Opere di Religione” (IOR). 

He is also listed among the “alleged Freemasons” of the “Pecorelli’s 

List”, with “entries”: Affiliation: 21/681967; Registration: 

43/649; Monogram: MARPA. 

He was involved in obscure financial dealings, in very close collaboration 

with Freemasonry 51. 

*** 

For reasons of space, the names of the Prelates affiliated to 

Freemasonry reported here are not exhaustive. The names that appear 

in the ranks of command of Paul VI, are many more than those 

cited. Here it will suffice to name two more, of major significance: 

51 Nick Tosches: “The Sindona Mystery”, Sugar ed., 1986, p. 138. “La Stampa” 

of January 10, 1994, under the title: “Di Pietro [renown District Attorney in 

the so called “Clean-Hands” criminal proceedings, and currently a Senator] Investigates 

the Monsignor of the IOR”. 

139

Cardinal Köenig and Cardinal Liénart. 

9th - Cardinal Franz Köenig 

This “Freemasonic cardinal” was Archbisop of Vienna, where 

he was Primate. He underwent two “legal proceedings”, both of 

which recognized his affiliation to Freemasonry. (He was acquitted 

for the only reason that “Freemasonry” in Austria is legally recognized). 

A German writer, E. K., “could prove”, in court, the affiliation 

of Cardinal Köenig to Freemasonry. Had his been a false accusation, 

the court would have sentenced him to a year in prison for 

“perjury”; on the contrary, there was not even a fine 52. 

Even the Catholic newspaper “DRM”, through its director, 

Benedikt Günther, spoke of that “lawsuit” the Cardinal had filed 

against that German teacher and writer, E. K., whom, however, 

“could prove Cardinal Köenig’s affiliation to Freemasonry”. But 

the director also wrote that on April 18, 1967, another writer had already 

informed the Cardinal of a scandal in the parish church of Vienna-Hetzendorf, 

in which there were three blasphemous emblems, 

painted by order of a Freemason of a high degree, but that the Cardinal 

never answered that letter in over ten years. However, that Director 

of “DRM”, in his “registered letter”, reiterates that, in that 

“Proceedings” against the Cardinal “evidence has been forwarded 

of your affiliation to the Masonic Lodge”… whereas against 

that writer no condemnation was issued. And he wraps up his letter 

inviting Cardinal Köenig, for the salvation of his soul, “to immediately 

leave the Masonic Lodge”. 

Another evidence of Cardinal Köenig’s affiliation to “Freemasonry” 

may be traced in his “greetings” to the Convention of Assisi, 

on August 22, 1988. The inventor of that “Peace Council” was 

the representative of the “New Age”, Heizsafrer, who looks forward 

to the advent of a “world religion”, which is indeed the Masonic 

scheme 53. Now, the “Freemason” Cardinal Köenig sent his “greetings” 

to that Convention. It must be noted that the “true Peace” of 

52 “Chiesa Viva”, n. 68, p. 18-19. 

53 “Der Schwarze Brief” of August 11, 1988. 

140

Cardinal Köenig lies in the “Nuova Spes”, which provides for a 

“New International Order”. A “peace”, that is, which corresponds 

to the new Masonic image of the “new man” 54. 

Even the official historian of Italian Freemasonry, Professor 

Aldo Mola, points to Köenig as a member of Freemasonry – 

based on information from a “very high and very well informed 

dignitary from Palazzo Giustiniani” – as a member of a covert 

Roman Lodge 55. 

Another serious evidence against him is: that he, together with 

the Grand Master Delegate of Austrian Freemasonry, Dr. Kurt 

Baresch, was the promoter of the Commission that approved the 

“Declaration” of Lichtenau of July 5, 1970, drafted by Rolf Appel, 

member of the Senate of the Grand United Lodges of German 

Freemasonry. It was elaborated and undersigned by a Masonic-Catholic 

Joint Commission. It sets out with an entreaty to the 

“Grand Architect of the Universe”, that is, to the god of Freemasonry, 

and it concludes looking forward to the revocation of the 

countless condemnations issued by the Catholic Church against that 

sect, particularly of the Canon Law Code’s Canons of 1917, which 

provide for the “excommunication” of Freemasons. 

Finally, one must not forget that, at the Council, it was Cardinal 

Köenig who recommended to the Conciliar Fathers to “finally take 

into consideration the ideas (!!) of Teilhard de Chardin on evolutionism”. 

10th - Cardinal Achille Liénart 

He appears as “Freemason” in various lists, as in “Introibo” of 

July, 1976 and on the Italian weekly “Il Borghese” [The Bourgeois]. 

He was “initiated” to Freemasonry at Cambrai in 1912, and 

in 1924, he was even elevated to 30 th degree of the ancient and accepted 

Scottish rite. 

The Freemason Monsieur B., (healed, then, at Lourdes on July 

19, 1932; with the healing recognized also by the “Bureau des Con- 

54 Idem. 

55 Aldo Mola, “History of Italian Freemasonry From the Origins to Our 

Days”, Bompiani, 1992 edition, p. 744. 

141

statations” on July 18, 1933) narrated that, at the time in which he 

frequented the Lodges, he used to meet there with Cardinal Liénart. 

It must be known that it was Cardinal Liénart who on October 

14, 1962, during the First Session of the works of Vatican II, 

sparked the rebellion against the study and work plans that the various 

Commissions of the Roman Curia had prepared, rejecting even 

the names the Curia had proposed for the composition of the various 

Commissions 56. 

Cardinal Liénart, in addition, was also one of the leaders of that 

organized group of Northern European Conciliar Fathers of a liberal 

bent, who took control of the Council, steering it toward those 

new and unexpected shores which are still destroying the Church. 

It is quite understandable, therefore, that this Freemason 

Cardinal, on his deathbed, had exclaimed: «Humanly speaking, 

the Church is lost» 57. 

142 

*** 

At this juncture, perhaps one will ask oneself whether the authenticity 

of those “Masonic lists” had been verified or not, for it 

would be disconcerting that Freemasonry, condemned and denounced 

by the pre-conciliar Church from time immemorial, could, 

today, after Paul VI, come to acquire such an enormous power – 

even though still hidden and uncontrollable – upon the entire 

Catholic Church. Thus before wrapping up our theme on the opening 

of Paul VI to Freemasonry, it is opportune that we say a word 

about the components in our possession in order to corroborate the 

authenticity of those “lists” which were the object of so many discussions. 

First of all, it is opportune to pause on the question of the “secret” 

of that Freemasonry sect, for Freemasonry has always been 

and still is a “Secret Society”, whose doings are carried out unbeknownst 

to all, and whose members remain surrounded by the most 

56 Peter Hebblethwaite, “John XXIII, The Pope of the Council”, Rusconi, 1989 

edition, p. 618. 

57 “Tradition-Information” n. 7, p. 21.

igorous mystery. That has been demonstrated, of late, even by the 

publicized occurrence of the P2 Lodge, which enlisted people of the 

most diverse and contradictory labels, both political and ideological. 

Hence it is pure simplemindedness to affirm that the P2 was a “Deviated” 

Lodge, when the official historian of Italian Freemasonry, 

Professor Aldo Mola in person, in an “interview” to “Il Sabato” 

magazine of December 26, 1992, affirmed that the P2 «was not a 

deviated lodge, but it was necessary to sacrifice it so that it 

would not be discovered that true Freemasonry was covert». 

Having clarified that, we can move on to the reliability of the 

principal “list” appeared on “OP” (Osservatorio Politico Internazionale) 

Magazine of September 12, 1978, thus subsequent to that 

which came out on “Panorama” Magazine of August 10, 1976. 

Hence, we point out: 

1st – That some cardinals requested clarifications as to the lists, 

and that Paul VI was forced to comply, entrusting the task to Monsignor 

Benelli, whom, in turn, passed the task over to Carabinieri 

General Enrico Mino 58. This, on the basis of the investigations, expressed 

his conviction that the list was reliable 59. Cardinal Siri, too, 

used the service of General Mino, in mid 1977, for investigations in 

“Panorama” Magazine. Unfortunately, the General passed away on 

October 31 that year, in the Calabria region, on Mount Rovello, under 

more than suspicious circumstances 60, carrying with him to the 

grave the outcome of his investigation. But there remain, however, 

some mysterious telephone calls in which Licio Gelli (Venerable 

of the P2 Lodge) spoke of the “succession” to General Mino, prior 

to the General’s tragic accident. 

2 nd - The “Pecorelli’s List” found credit even in the Vatican, 

where a young employee – nephew of a (well known) ecclesiastic 

(Father P. E.) – had handed a series of delicate “documents” to 

58 “30 Giorni” of November 11, 1992, p. 30 and subsequent. 


60 “30 Giorni” of November 11, 1992, p. 34-35. 

143

Monsignor Benelli, then Substitute of the Secretary of State, who 

made him swear «that he was not lying about so grave a matter» 

61. Some photocopies of those “documents” were also in the 

possession of Cardinal Staffa 62. 

I had “assurance” of this “fact” from a cardinal of the Curia 

63, who later also gave me some photocopies of those same “documents”. 

3rd - The “Card Numbers”, reported on the “Pecorelli’s List”, 

confer a more than credible spin, since Pecorelli was a member of 

the P2 Lodge (and thus in the know of “secret things”), but also for 

the reason that, with that list, he had just invited the scarcely elected 

Pope Luciani to a rigorous control, with the intention of offering 

a valid contribution to the transparency of the Catholic Church Herself. 

In any case, that “list” should have sparked off either a shower 

of denials or a purge in the ecclesial ranks. On the contrary, not a 

single “denial” was to be had. As for “purges”, besides, the newly 

elected Pontiff did not even have the time, perhaps even “because” 

Pope Luciani, “who had manifested the intention of having a 

hand in the issue of the IOR and shed a light as to the list of alleged 

Prelates affiliated to Freemasonry”, He, too, passed away 

in circumstances and ways as yet unknown 64. What is more, Mino 

Pecorelli, the author of that “list”, was gunned down a few 

months later, on March 20, 1979; hence, with him, were buried all 

of the other “secrets” concerning that Masonic sect in his possession. 

Now, one could ask oneself: why is it that all of the “listed” in 

that “Masonic list” have never come together in order to deny that 

public denunciation, complete with detailed “entries” (Affiliation, 

61 “Il Sabato” of August 10, 1991, p. 21 and subsequent. 

62 On “30 Giorni” of June 6, 1992, three are reproduced. 

63 We omit, here, the name of this Cardinal, as he did not authorize us to publi- 

cize it. 

64 Also “30 Giorni” of September 9, 1993, p. 44-45. 

144

Registration, Monogram), asking the courts for a clarifying investigation, 

at least on the graphological analysis of the 

acronyms at the foot of the documents? How not to recognize, 

then, that that lack of denials and that prolonged silence are more 

than eloquent as they take on the value of circumstantial evidence 

of the greatest import? 

The only one to be removed from office was – as we noted – 

Monsignor Bugnini, the main author of that revolutionary liturgical 

reform that upset, in a Lutheran form, the bi-millennial rite of the 

Holy Mass, but it was only after the presentation to Paul VI of the 

“evidence” of his belonging to the Masonic sect, that he was sent 

away from Rome and dispatched as a “pro-Nuncio” to Iran. 

However, another serious confirmation of the “Pecorelli’s 

list” appeared also on the weekly “OGGI” of June 17, 1981, already 

mentioned, under the title: “Salvini Confided to Me Names of People 

Above Suspicions”. It is an interview with Counsel Ermenegildo 

Benedetti, of Massa Carrara, former “Grand Orator” of the “Grand 

Orient of Italy”, and thus N° 2 of Italian Freemasonry. Now, in that 

interview, he said: “It was being said of Monsignor Bettazzi, of 

Monsignor Casaroli, of Cardinal Poletti, of Father Caprile, writer 

of “Civiltà Cattolica” magazine, and of Bishop Marcinkus, the man 

of Vatican finances, the so called “Banker of God”. The buzz about 

these people had been around since 1970. Let it be no doubt about 

it: it was not mere talk; it was “confidential information” we at 

the top of Italian Freemasonry used to pass on to one another”. 

And here, I would have you note: 

1 st , that the names uttered by him are all to be found in the 

“Pecorelli’s list”; 

2 nd , that they were not “voices”, but “confidential information”, 

current in the high degrees of Italian Freemasonry. Now, no 

Prelate involved has ever come forward to sue the high Masonic 

dignitary, despite the wide diffusion, on a national scale, of that 

weekly. 

*** 

The theme of our investigation may as well stop at this stage, at 

145

the “mole” Pecorelli, who was able to infiltrate the archives of the 

“Grand Orient” and extract those confidential documents. 

Having outlined, in this way, the boundaries of our work, we 

may also comprehend the question that, certainly, will spring up in 

many minds: «If such was the situation of 1976-78, who, then, 

was Paul VI to hand the Church over to so little worthy a staff 

of Cardinals and Bishops, radically different from those who 

preceded them?». 

A shattering question, which immediately brings to mind a writing 

of Prince Scortesco, German cousin of Prince Borghese, chair 

of the Conclave that elected Montini Supreme Pontiff; a “writing” 

containing the following information about the Conclave of 

June 21, 1963: 

146 

«During the Conclave, a Cardinal stepped out 

of the Sistine Chapel, met with representatives 

of the B’nai B’rith, announced to them the election 

of Cardinal Siri. These replied saying that 

the persecutions against the Church would resume 

immediately. Returning to the Conclave, 

he had Montini elected». 

Here, it would come natural to say: no comment! To me, however, 

that election of Paul VI brings to mind other elections of 

Popes, such as that of Pius IX, upon whom the Masonic sect had 

placed vague hopes of reconciliation with the “new ideas”. What 

did happen, instead, is well known. Pius IX, instructed by his own 

experiences, and, above all, enlightened by the Divine Light, 

through his “Syllabus” reduced Liberalism, that is, Masonry, into 

dust. Upon his death, however, Freemasonry believed the hour had 

come for their revival and their triumph over the Church. The 

Freemason Leone Gambetta 65, when, on February 20, 1878, Leo 

XIII was elected, thus wrote to a friend: «This shall be a great day. 

The peace coming from Berlin, and, perhaps, the reconciliation 

65 Lèon Gambetta: French politician, Representative, House Speaker, and Prime 

Minister. He died in 1882.

with the Vatican. The new Pope has been elected: He is that elegant 

and sophisticated Cardinal Pecci, Bishop of Perugia, whom 

Pius IX had attempted to snatch the tiara from, naming him Camerlengo. 

This Italian, more of a diplomat than he is an ecclesiastic, has 

survived all the plots of the Jesuits and of the foreign clerics. He is 

Pope, and the name he took of Leo XIII seems to me the best of 

omens. I greet this event loaded with promises. He will not break 

away openly from the traditions and declarations of his predecessor, 

but his conduct, his acts, and his relations will be more meaningful 

than his words, and if he does not die too soon, we may hope in a 

convenient union with the Church». 

The next day he wrote another letter: «Paris, February 22, 1978 

– I am infinitely grateful to this new Pope for the name he dared to 

take: he is a holy opportunist. Could we cut a deal? Who knows? As 

the Italians say». 

But Leo XIII “did not die too soon”. God granted him 25 years 

of reign, and the Masonic sect had to postpone that “convenient 

union with the Church”. In fact, Leo XIII, in four different occasions, 

steadfastly confirmed Pius IX’s “Syllabus”, and truthfully 

said of himself: «Our struggle has not only the defense and integrity 

of religion as an objective, but also that of civil society, 

and the restoration of the principles that are the foundation of 

peace and prosperity». 

Freemasonry, however, always hoped in a speedy reconciliation 

with the Church. On the Masonic Magazine “Acacia” of September, 

1903, out came an article of F. Hiran, titled: “The Death of 

Leo XIII”, in which he invoked a Pope who would “undo the ties 

of dogmatism stretched to the extreme, who would not pay heed 

to fanatical theologians and accusers of heresies, who would let 

the exegetists work as they pleased, who would recommend and 

practice tolerance toward the other religions, who would not renew 

the excommunication of Freemasonry” 66. 

66 Enrico Delassus, “The Problem of the Present Hour”, Desclèe and C. Tipografi-Editori 

1907, vol. 1, p. 305. 

147

But Freemasonry was to be disillusioned again, for the hand of the 

Holy Spirit never appeared so evident as in the election of Pius X. 

Unfortunately, the underlying maladies of the Church of the Vatican 

II had long been around: the temptation of Protestantism, of 

Marxism, and of Modernism, was already in the subconscious of 

many Catholics; Vatican II would create the necessary conditions in 

order that these tendencies would come to light and be retained as a 

new orthodoxy. 

Using the colorful expression of Cardinal Heenan, Vatican II 

became a sort of “ecclesiastical safari”; to others, instead, it was 

the long awaited occasion, and they, well organized, were able to 

“hijack” it in the wanted direction. The German group, then, with 

their allies and with a “Blitzkrieg” tactic, continuously pulverized 

and demoralized their adversaries, skillfully using pressure groups. 

Thus the majority of the Fathers gave in, often involuntarily, not to 

be branded as a “Passatist” by the mass media, all hostile, by now, 

to Tradition. In any case, the Conciliar documents, rather than the 

work of the bishops that signed them, were the work of the “experts”, 

the fifth column of Modernism, whose main concern was 

the ecumenism at any costs. 

And thus went Vatican II, whose ambiguous texts will cause the 

Anglican observer Gregory Baum to say: 

148 

«The Council has, therefore, admitted that the 

Church of Christ is something wider than the 

Roman Catholic Church”; and the other 

Protestant observer, Oscar Cullmann, “All of 

the texts are formulated so as not to shut any 

door, and will not present in the future any obstacle 

to discussions among Catholics, nor to 

the dialogue with non-Catholics, as it was customary, 

with the dogmatic decisions of the previous 

Councils». 

Well, it is only in this neo-Modernist light that the “opera 

omnia” of Paul VI during and following Vatican II, ought to be 

seen.

THE “MASONIC PLAN” 

FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH 

– «Our ultimate goal is that of Voltaire of the French Revolution: 

namely, the complete annihilation of Catholicism and even 

of the Christian idea... With the passport of hypocrisy, we can 

conspire with all our opportunity and reach, little by little, our goal. 

(...). What we must try and wait for, as the Jews await the Messiah, 

is a Pope according to our needs. (...). There is little to be done with 

old Cardinals and with prelates of decided character. (...). 

You must aim at the Youth: You must seduce the young! It is 

necessary that you attract the youth, without them knowing it, 

under the banner of secret societies. (...). 

You want to revolutionize Italy? Look at the Pope of which we 

have painted a picture. Do you want to establish the kingdom of the 

elect upon the throne of the prostitute of Babylon? Let the clergy 

walk under your flag, believing they are walking under the banner 

of the Apostolic Keys! 

Widen your networks; extend them to the heart of the sacristy, seminaries 

and convents (...). You must look for friends and ones that 

will lead to the foot of the Apostolic See. 

So you’ll discover a revolution in a tiara and cape, preceded by 

the cross and banner, a revolution that will need a little help to 

set fire to the four corners of the world. 

The conspiracy against the Roman See should never be confused 

with other projects. (...). None that conspire against 

Rome! (...). 

Catholicism, and even still less the monarchy, is not afraid of 

the tip of a dagger, but these two bases of social order can fall 

under the weight of corruption. They never tire of a bribe. (...) 

Vice is popularized in multitudes. Those who breathe with the 

five senses, and those who drink, will be drenched (...). 

Make hearts vicious and you’ll have no more Catholics. Remove 

the priest from work, from the altar and from virtue: 

have him look elsewhere to occupy his thoughts and his time. 

Make him idle, glutinous (...); have him become ambitious, intriguing 

and perverse. 

149

150 

We have undertaken a great corruption, the corruption of the 

people through the clergy and clergy through us, the corruption 

that must lead to the burial of the Church! 

The aim is very good for ambitious men like us (...). The best dagger 

to assassinate the Church and strike at its heart is corruption. 

So work towards this end». 

(Enrico Delassus, “Il problema dell’ora presente”, Desclèe e C. 

Tipografi-Editori 1907, Vol. I, p. 582-625). 

– Pope Leo XIII, in his 1884 encyclical against Freemasonry: “Humanum 

genus”, having recognized the division of mankind into 

two adverse and opposing camps: «the first is the kingdom of 

God on earth, that is the true Church of Jesus Christ» and «the 

second is the kingdom of Satan...». Further on, he affirms «The 

ultimate goal of Freemasons being to persecute Christianity 

with relentless hatred, and that they will never be at peace, - not 

ever until they will not see all religious institutions founded by 

the Popes on the earth». The Pope notes that «Wanting to destroy 

the religion and the Church founded by God, Himself, 

and His assurance of immortal life (...) is signal folly and audacious 

impiety...»! 

– After the publication of the “Humanum genus,” The Bulletin of 

the Symbolic Scottish Grand Lodge expressed, in these terms, the 

thought of the sect: «The Freemasonry can not help but thank the 

Supreme Pontiff of the last encyclical. Leo XIII, with unquestionable 

authority, and with great luxury of evidence has demonstrated 

once again that there is an unbridgeable gulf between the 

Church of which he is the representative, and the Revolution, of 

which Freemasonry is the right arm. It is good that the skeptics 

cease to entertain vain hopes. All must get used to the understanding 

that one must come forward to re-choose between the 

old order that rests on Revelation and new order which does 

not recognize any other foundations then that of science and 

human reason, in the spirit of authority and spirit of liberty». 

(Enrico Delassus, “Il problema dell’ora presente”, Desclèe e C. 

Tipografi-Editori 1907, vol. I, p. 39).

The cover of French magazine: “Monde e vie” [“The World and Life”]. It was the latest 

issue of the magazine, after which came out with this too meaningful presentation of the 

“new Luther”! 

151

A corner of the cemetery Verolavecchia, near Brescia (Italy), where the graves of family 

Alghisi (the maternal family of Paul VI) rest.

At the base of the right tomb, dedicated to family Alghisi, the bas-relief erected with those 

Masonic symbols.

154 

The “bronze door” at St. Peter’s Basilica - Rome.

The “Doors of Good and Evil” 

This is the “bronze door” of the sculptor, Luciano Minguzzi, called: “The Door 

of Good and Evil” (see photo on previous page). It was put into place in 1977 

and created in honor of the birthday of Paul VI (born Sept. 26. 1897). 

When it was inaugurated, the “Panel of Good”, panel N ° 12, featured “The Second 

Vatican Council”. It included the Four Council Fathers between John 

XXIII and Paul VI. 

While John XXIII and the four other Council Fathers were carved with the face 

looking forward, Paul VI (the last on the right – a total of six figures in all) was 

hand carved in profile, to present, clearly visible, his left hand with a clear Masonic 

symbol “the five-pointed star”, or “Masonic Pentalfa”. 

Shortly after the inauguration of the “Bronze Door”, the undersigned [Fr. Luigi 

Villa], went to see that “new door” of the Basilica of St. Peter and observed well, 

seeing that Masonic sign on the back of the left hand of Paul VI. Immediately, 

I went to a Cardinal to denounce what I had seen. The Cardinal assured me 

that he would immediately take care of it. 

In fact, shortly after, when I returned to Rome, I went to review the “bronze 

door”, I noticed that Masonic sign on the back of the left hand of Pope Paul VI 

had been scraped off: you could see the red copper. Realizing they were discovered, 

then, they had seen to it: first, to scrape off the Masonic symbol. Then, - as 

I saw on my return to Rome once again - they replaced the entire panel No. 12 

with another, the current (see photo below) on which appeared not more than six 

figures, but five, so far as I could see! 

(For a better understanding of the tremendous significance of “five-pointed 

star”, carved on the back of the left hand of Paul VI, as it appeared on the first 

tile N ° 12, see Appendix II: “Five-pointed Star” “The Signature” of the Pontificate 

of Paul VI). 

155

156 

«The main object of the Society 

(Freemasonry) 

is intended to trample 

when it has reached sufficient strength, 

all Nations and reduce the world 

to a Universal Republic». 

(Francovich: “History of Freemasonry in Italy” 

citing a “Masonic document” from 1756)

CHAPTER V 

HIS “OPENING TO 

UNIVERSAL DEMOCRACY” 

Thus to Paul VI, man is above everything else, which is why you 

see in him and in his writings, more zeal to defend the rights and interests 

of man rather that of God’s. He mixes humanism with Christianity. 

Unquestionably, the Christian religion more than any other 

is permeated with humanism, moreover She teaches, in the first 

place, the love of a God who has given His life for man, but for 

man’s eternal salvation. 

Paul VI, on the contrary, predicts the advent of a peaceful society, 

thanks to the establishment of a “conscience of humanity”, by 

way of natural means; which is a real utopia with a taste of 

“heresy”, since man, after the “Original sin”, is more inclined to 

evil than to good: egoism, greed, vengeance, hatred, wickedness of 

all kinds, hence it can but be anything but utopia. How can this 

dream of utopian societies in which all men love one another, respect 

one another, come to be if you do not first inculcate respect 

for the “Rights of God”?. 

And that is an elementary and fundamental truth Paul VI continuously 

chose to ignore, placing always the accent onto “human 

rights”, as an echo of the French Revolution of 1789. 

A “new Christianity”, therefore, but one unable to generate the 

“Charity” the World needs. 

157

Now, do the Pope and the Bishops ignore the consequence of 

this “cult of Man”? Don’t they know how many and which crimes 

have been committed, in the aftermath of that Satanic French Revolution, 

precisely in the name of “Human Rights”? Have they forgotten 

that it was revolutionary France to put Europe to the sword 

and blood, claiming to “liberate”, in this way, “the oppressed peoples”? 

Naturally, the “Charter” of “Human Rights” contains also 

some worthy things; yet these are not the brainchild of the Revolution, 

since they existed already in the Gospel. In any case, those 

writings contain a perverse ideology, serving Man as a supreme being, 

and excluding any Right of God, and God Himself. 

That is why Pius IX said: 

158 

«The French Revolution was inspired by Satan 

himself. Its goal is the destruction Christianity 

from top to bottom» 1. 

However, even the principles of “Liberty-Equality-Fraternity” 

are false, not in themselves, but because they are not subordinated 

to God and to His laws. They could be held as valid only by 

alienating oneself from the spirit that has dictated them, from the 

spirit that animates them, from the spirit that applies and manifests 

them, cunningly confusing the true with the false and the false with 

the true. 

In fact, the “Declaration” of 1789 claimed that the will of the 

“sovereign people” replaced the will of the “SOVEREIGN 

GOD”; it claimed that human laws take the place of divine laws; 

claimed that “natural rights” be above “supernatural rights”. 

In a word: the alleged “Human Rights” were to replace “Jesus 

Christ’s Eternal Rights”. 

Hence, in conscience, a Catholic must absolutely distance himself 

from these principles of the French Revolution, and cannot accept 

the spirit that dictated them, nor their interpretation, nor their 

application. 

1 Pius IX, September 8, 1849.

Paul VI, on the contrary, held a different view. He regarded the 

“Charter of Human Rights” as the version of a modern Gospel. 

St. Pius X had written: 

«… They fear not to draw between the Gospel 

and the Revolution blasphemous comparisons» 

2. 

Paul VI, on the other hand, filled his entire Pontificate with a relentless 

preaching of “Human Rights”, both of individuals and Nations 

3. 

«Something new was being perceived – said he – 

They were ideas of living, concurrences between 

the great principles of the Revolution, which did 

nothing but appropriate some Christian concepts: 

fraternity, equality, progress, desire of elevating 

the underprivileged classes. Hence, all 

this is Christian; and yet it had borne, then, an 

anti-Christian symbol, secular, anti-religious, 

tending to misrepresent this part of the evangelical 

heritage, aiming at developing human life in 

an elevated and noble sense» 4. 

It must be remarked, here, that it is not an “anti-Christian symbol”, 

but rather an “anti-Christian spirit” that has appropriated the 

Christian concepts in order to turn them against God. 

Deplorably, the Conciliar Constitution: “The Church in the 

Modern World”, reads: 

«The Church, by virtue of the Gospel committed 

to Her, proclaims the rights of man; She ac- 

2 Pius X, “Letter on the Sillon”, n. 41. 

3 Marcel de Corte, “Courrier de Rome”, September 25, 1971, n. 86, p. 8. 

4 Paul VI, September 1, 1963. 

159

160 

knowledges and greatly esteems the dynamic 

movements of today by which these rights are 

everywhere fostered» 5. 

After that false Conciliar assertion, this other assertion of Paul 

VI’s, at Manila, came as no surprise: 

«I feel the obligation of professing, here, more 

than anywhere else, “Human Rights”, for you 

and for all the poor of the world» 6. 

It would appear that, to Paul VI, to profess the “Gospel” or 

“Human Rights” are one and the same thing. And he went on: 

«The Church firmly believes that the promotion 

of “Human Rights” is a requirement of the 

Gospel, and that it must occupy a central place 

in Her ministry» 7. 

“A requirement of the Gospel”? But where in the Gospel, a 

text – at least one! – is ever to be found encouraging the claim of 

“human rights”? 

But Paul VI goes on: 

«In Her desire to convert fully to Her Lord, 

and in order to better fulfill Her ministry, the 

Church intends to manifest respect and care of 

“Human Rights” within Herself» 8. 

How odd! Paul VI affirms that, in order to convert fully “to the 

Lord” and that “to better fulfill Her ministry”, the Church must 

5 Conciliar Constitution: “The Church in the World of Our Time”, n. 41. 

6 Paul VI at Manila, November 29, 1970. 

7 D. C. November 17, 1974, n. 1664, p. 965. And again in D. C. of March 7, 

1976, n. 1693, p. 223. 

8 Paul VI’s Address with the Father of the Synod, on October 23, 1974.

take “care of the Rights of Man”, whereas St. Paul Apostle, 

speaking of his apostolic ministry, wrote: «For I determined not to 

know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him Crucified» 

9. 

Sure, Paul VI is not St. Paul Apostle, nor did he share with him 

a common view. In fact, he continued to identify evangelization 

with the defense of Human Rights. He said: 

«In light of that which we perceive of our duty 

of evangelization, and with the strength of our 

duty to proclaim the Good News, we affirm our 

own determination to promote “Human 

Rights” and the reconciliation in the entire 

Church and in the world of today» 10. 

Let us recall, then, what Leo XIII wrote, on December 8, 1892: 

«Every familiarity should be avoided (…) with 

those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, 

respect for all religions, and the craving 

to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with 

those of the Revolution». 

But Paul VI ignored that Voice of the Magisterium, too, and thus 

said: 

«Peace and Human Rights: such is the thought 

with which, we hope, men will commence the 

coming year… This message of ours cannot 

lack the strength that comes to it from that 

Gospel of which we are minister, the Gospel of 

Christ. It, too, like the Gospel, is addressed to 

everyone in the world» 11. 

9 I Corinthians 2, 2. 

10 D. C. November 17, 1974, n. 1664, p. 966. 

11 Paolo VI, “Peace Day”, January 1, 1969. 

161

Even on the occasion of the 25 th anniversary of the European 

Convention on “Human Rights”, Paul VI said: 

162 

«In order to promote peace and carry out a 

moral reconstruction, in this post-war Europe, 

with her wounds still open, respect of “Human 

Rights” is of the utmost importance…» 12. 

Now, no one can doubt that the “human means” be the sole of 

real interest to Paul VI. “Of the utmost importance”, for the 

“moral reconstruction of Europe”, is not the Gospel, said he, but 

“Human Rights”, which are based: 

– upon the “cult of a Freedom” (one that does not take at all 

into account God and the duties toward Him); 

– upon the “myth of Equality” (source of continuous injustices 

and violence); 

– upon the “dream” of a “universal Fraternity” (gained at the 

price of concessions and betrayals, and through mere “human 

means”). 

It must be noted, again, that the “Charter of Human Rights” 

has not only produced conflicts, upheavals, disputes, and wars, since 

man, separated from God, shall always dream of claiming his 

“rights” rather that his “duties”. 

In any case, Paul VI should have known that the sole means to 

check such upheavals is to “CHRISTIANIZE THE WORLD”, giving 

it Jesus Christ, preaching His Gospel, administering His Sacraments, 

through which comes to us the indispensable grace of God. 

Instead, in Maritain’s “Integral Humanism” we read that 

“Universal Democracy”, or the “City of the World”, must be 

founded upon “Conscience”, and must be based upon the 

“Charter” of “Human Rights”, that is, upon the laws of the 

modern city. 

“Human Rights” would thus be the transposition, in a modern 

key, of the Evangelical Message. 

12 Allocution of November 7, 1975.

Paul VI affirms it, too: 

«This edifice which you are constructing – he 

said in his address to the United Nations - does 

not rest upon merely material and earthly foundations, 

for if so, it would be a house built upon 

sand; it rests above all on our own consciences…. 

Today, as never before, in an era 

marked by such human progress, there is need 

for an appeal to the moral conscience of man». 

But whence is to come the moral strength to sustain “moral 

conscience”, if not from Divine Grace? 

But Paul VI, in one of his Wednesday “Allocutions” (December 

8, 1965), would represent his theory of “conscience”, considered 

as moral strength, onto which “religious sentiment” is engaged, 

saying: 

«It is in the expression of moral conscience that 

man frees himself from temptations… It is out 

of this moral conscience that the interests corrupting 

his dignity are overcome, the fears that 

render the heart base and inept are vanquished, 

the sentiments that generate the worthy, 

the honest, nay, the strong, are generated. 

It is this conscience the great characters of the 

human drama, the innocent, the heroes, the 

saints, draw their strength from…». 

That is not the way a “cleric” is expected to speak, as the 

Grace of Christ Redeemer is ignored, without which we can do 

nothing. Here, the Sacraments are ignored. Here, prayer is ignored. 

But Paul VI, even in his “Message” to the UN of October 4, 

1970, would reiterate: 

«What does this conscience, then, express with 

so much strength? “Human Rights”! The conscience 

of humanity grows stronger and 

stronger. Men rediscover this inalienable part 

163

164 

of themselves which binds them together: the 

human in man». 

And on he goes: 

«Is “The Charter of Human Rights”: not only 

to claim for anyone, regardless of race, age, sex, 

and religion, respect for human dignity and for 

the conditions necessary for its practice, but also 

to translate, loud and clear, the unanimous 

aspiration of hearts and the universal testimony 

of consciences?». 

As one can see, this new “Humanist Decalogue” contains, to be 

sure, some fine words that stir the hearts: truths, justice, dignity, solidarity, 

equality, brotherhood, etc., but none of them sufficient to 

subdue the flesh, the world, the devil. 

Paul VI, on the contrary, resumes his “Humanist Decalogue” 

even in his “Brief [Pontifical letter] to the United Nations” of October 

4, 1965: 

«A system apt to cater to public welfare such as 

might interest mankind as a whole, cannot subsists 

other than Yours, founded upon the respect 

of the rights, just freedom, and dignity of 

the person, with the removal of the fatal folly of 

war and of the harmful fury of pride». 

Words in the wind, these of Paul VI’s, which shall never yield 

the smallest act of virtue, or a renunciation, or a sacrifice, or an 

evangelical forgiveness, or any other Christian good. 

I would have one read, therefore, what St. Pius X wrote: 

«… According to them, man will be a man truly 

worthy of the name only when he has acquired 

a strong, enlightened, and independent 

consciousness, able to do without a master, 

obeying only himself, and able to assume the 

most demanding responsibilities without falter-

ing. Such are the big words by which human 

pride is exalted» 13. 

But neither Christ, nor the Grace of the Sacraments, nor the Law 

of the Gospel dwell in Paul VI’s mind, committed, as he was by 

now, on the naturalist level. In fact, at Bombay, on December 3, 

1964, he would stress once again that: 

«The human race is undergoing profound 

changes and is groping for the guiding principles 

and the new forces that will lead it into the 

world of the future». 

But what kind of a “Vicar of Christ” has this Paul VI been? 

«We must – said he – become closer to one another 

not only through press and radio and 

ships and jet-planes, but we must become closer 

through our hearts, through our mutual understanding, 

esteem, and love». 

In short, everything is based on man! “Religion”, with him, had no 

longer a place. It is the “cult of man” that must breed the love of man. 

It is Freemason-talk all along, just as on September 1, 1963, as 

we reported above; words that suit perfectly that association with 

the ideas of the Masonic French Revolution. But that’s not how 

things stand! The “principles” of 1789 are not at all the principles 

of the Gospel! Only by respecting the “Rights of God” shall 

man have respect for the “Rights of man”, too, for only by making 

of Charity, Christian renunciation, and self-oblivion one’s own 

life, shall man be able to put into practice the Law of Christ: “BUT 

SEEK YE FIRST THE KINGDOM OF GOD, AND HIS RIGHT- 

EOUSNESS; AND ALL THESE THINGS SHALL BE ADDED 

UNTO YOU 14. 


14 Matthew 6, 33. 

165

Perhaps, that evangelical text never occurred to Paul VI, in 

which Christ says clearly, “but seek ye first the Kingdom of God 

and His righteousness”, that is, the life of Grace and Sanctity, in 

order to gain access to the Beatitude of the Glory of Heaven, and 

that, therefore, no progress is at all possible, not even of a human 

and temporal nature, but insofar as man sought first the “Kingdom 

of God”. 

Hence all of Paul VI’s words, were but a “chimera” of a “New 

World”, of a Paradise on earth, possible through the exclusive 

forces of man. 

On July 19, 1971, in fact, he said: 

166 

«Something great and new is in the works and 

it is coming about, which might change the face 

of the earth». 

These are words of a hazy and whimsical Messianism, which 

had caused him to utter, at the UN, those other ludicrous and fanciful 

remarks: 

«Citizens of the world, as you salute the dawn 

of this new year, 1970, take a moment to think: 

whither is mankind’s path leading? Today we 

can take an overall view, a prophetic view. 

Mankind is traveling forward, that is, progressing 

toward an ever-greater mastery of the 

world… And how does this mastery help 

mankind? It helps it to live a better and fuller 

life. Mankind seeks fullness of life and obtains 

it… It strives for that unity, justice, balance 

and perfection, which we call Peace… 

Peace is the logical aim of the present world; it 

is the destiny of progress; it is the ultimate order 

the great strivings of civilization are headed 

for… We proclaim Peace as the dominant 

idea in the conscious life of man, who wants to 

see the prospect of his immediate and more distant 

journey. Once more we proclaim Peace, for 

Peace is, at one and the same time, under dif-

ferent aspects, both the beginning and the end 

of the development of society» 15. 

The ludicrous and hallucinating utterances of a false prophet! 

The Word of God, besides, clearly refutes his assertions. “Non est 

pax impiis” 16. Only Christ can give “peace”, but not in the same 

manner as worldly peace. 

It is appropriate to report once more what St. Pius X wrote in 

his “Letter on the Sillon”: 

«No, Venerable Brethren… The city of the 

world shall not be built otherwise than as God 

has built it; society shall not be setup unless the 

Church lays the foundations and supervises the 

work; no, civilization is not something yet to be 

found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy 

notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is 

Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It 

has only to be set up and restored continually 

against the unremitting attacks of insane 

dreamers, rebels and miscreants. OMNIA IN- 

STAURARE IN CHRISTO» 17. 

“Peace”, therefore, can neither be a fruit of man’s civilization, 

nor can it be of the United Nations. 

And the same must be said of “Justice”. And yet Paul VI, even 

here, on October 4, 1965, had this to say to the Conciliar Fathers: 

«We all, convinced that peace has to be founded 

upon justice, shall become the advocates of 

justice. Christ wants us to be hungry and 

thirsty». 

15 Peace Day Messagge, 1970. 

16 Isaiah 48, 22 - 57, 21. 


167

In reality, however, Jesus spoke of another “justice”, that of 

man toward God, “Sanctity”, that is, whereas social justice can be 

but a consequence of the other. 

But Paul VI’s mind is that of a revolutionary Messianism: to 

subordinate the prospect of peace to the establishment of justice. 

And that he wrote in his “Populorum Progressio” of March 26, 

1967, in which his analysis has a flavor of Marxism, since the word 

“Justice” pairs up with the word “Equality”; namely: the rich divide 

their resources with the deprived, or there would be war (as if 

it were not just the opposite, since the rich and strong always cause 

wars just to push the poor in deeper and deeper into poverty and 

therefore powerless). 

However, the “Populorum Progressio” as it is written, excited 

the resentments of the Third World populations, offering them “development” 

as an objective (but through their own efforts), as a result, 

pressured the rich to share their goods. “Development”, that is, 

is tantamount to “Peace”. Precisely the program, in fact, of Communism. 

And that is why Paul VI, at Bogotà, at Manila, in Australia, 

stirred the poor against the rich, indigenous peoples against Westerners; 

a dialectical masquerade of “class struggle”, softened with 

the recommendation of an evangelical solution, which repudiates 

violence and calls for love: 

168 

«That in the past, the Church and the Popes 

themselves, in other very different circumstances, 

resorted to arms and temporal power, 

even for good causes and with the best of intentions, 

we are not here to judge, now; to us it is 

no longer the time to turn to the sword and to 

force, even when these were to be sustained by 

aims of justice and progress; and we are confident 

that all good Catholics and all sound and 

modern public opinion share our view. We are 

convinced, rather, that the time is ripe for 

Christian love among men; love must operate, 

love must change the face of the earth; love 

must bring justice, progress, brotherhood and 

peace into the world».

A way of speaking which is also “Utopia”, perhaps the most unrealizable 

in a world without God, in a civilization of sin. Hence 

Paul VI’s reckoning is, indirectly, an authentic justification of violence; 

a not so veiled authorization to “revolutionary insurrection”, 

which would be 

«The case of longstanding tyranny which would 

cause great damage to fundamental human 

rights and harm to the common good of the 

country…» 18. 

In conclusion, Paul VI’s program was: 

«To reduce iniquities, eliminate discrimination, 

free men from the bonds of servitude, and thus 

give them the capacity, in the sphere of temporal 

realities, to improve their lot, to further 

their moral growth and to develop their spiritual 

endowments» 19. 

It is a program, however, of Masonic philanthropy, of integral 

Socialism, to be realized through force. St. Pius X would say, as he 

did of the Sillon: «Socialism will be ushered in, with its eyes fixed 

on a chimera» 20. 

Now, that is not the “design of God”, but diverting of the eyes 

of the Faithful from Heaven in order to turn them into “slaves of the 

World”, as it is read in the Apocalypse. 

Paul VI’s “Populorum Progressio”, therefore, save for the idyllic 

calls to love, in order to reach it, calls for the fusion of religions, 

the heaping up of them into a chaotic confusion. 

In fact, what place would occupy religion in that planned “city 

of man”? In other words, what place would be due to religion in 

that new humanism proclaiming continuously that man is sufficient 

18 Paul VI, “Populorum Progressio”, n. 31. 

19 Ibid. n. 34. 


169

unto himself, hence he can do without transcendence, revelation, supernatural 

redemption, dogma, worship, singular Church? But was 

it not, on the contrary, exactly this that all of the popes prior to Paul 

VI condemned? He, on the contrary, at Sidney, on December 13, 

1970, will say: 

170 

«Isolation is no longer an option. The hour has 

come for the great fellowship of men with each 

other, and for the setting up of a United and 

Fraternal World Community» and «The work 

of peace is not limited to one religious faith; it 

is the work and duty of every man, regardless 

of his religious convictions. Men are brothers, 

God is their Father and their Father wants 

them to live in peace with on one anothers» 21. 

But then it is God calling for tolerance, indifference, liberalism, 

and respect of every religion! If that is the case, God would also 

want His own discredit, willing that «a human community be built 

where men can live truly human lives, free from discrimination 

on account of race, religion or nationality...» 22, hence «any discrimination, 

be it of an ethical, cultural, religious or political nature, 

is unjustified and inadmissible» 23. 

But that would lead to the conclusion that if religion serves no 

purpose in this new world society, then neither would God. 

And that is the Masonic thought, as well as Maritain’s: «Integral 

Humanism can but find its ideological foundations in a profane 

tradition of the Gospel…». 

But Paul VI, too, in his address of January 30, 1965, would say: 

«The Church cannot turn a blind eye onto the 

ideological, moral and spiritual animation of 

public life… Work with faith, yes, with confi- 

21 To the religious organizations of the UN, on October 14, 1965. 

22 Paul VI, “Populorum Progressio”, n. 47. 

23 Oct. Adv. 23 and 16.

dence toward the systems that form the norm 

and history of our society, and which today are 

the democratic ones». 

And in his address of September 14, 1965: 

«We feel responsible. We are indebted to everyone. 

The Church, in this world, is not an aim in 

itself; She is at the service of mankind; She 

must make Christ present to all, individuals 

and peoples». 

But what “presence of Christ”? That of the lackey? 

«To serve mankind, of every condition, in every 

weakness and need. The Church has, so to say, 

proclaimed Herself the servant of humanity» 24. 

And he adds: 

«While other currents of thought and action 

propose to build the city of man, different principles 

such as power, wealth, science, struggle, 

interest, etcetera, the Church, the Church 

alone, proclaims love» 25. 

Paul VI, therefore, wanted to fortify that “new city”, ideal and 

secular, with that “supplement of faith and love” which the UN requires. 

But that means that, by osmosis, they will change into one, 

in man and in love for the world. And that in order to ensure the 

success of the project of the man who makes himself God. Hence 

“The religion of the God who became man”, should thus place itself 

at the service of the “the religion of man who makes himself God”! 

24 Address of December 7, 1965. 

25 Address of December 14, 1965. 

171

172 

*** 

How could this Pope, who even at Bethlehem, on January 16, 

1964, had said: «We must ensure to the life of the Church a new 

way of feeling, of willing, of behaving», go on to speak and act as 

he pleased? 

And who on August 12, had said: 

«Religion must be renovated. That is the persuasion 

of all those who, today, are still (sic) 

dealing with religion, whether they be outside 

of its concrete expression: a faith, an observance, 

a community, or be within a religious 

profession or discussion. It all depends on what 

one intends for renovation». 

It is a speech that might have hinted to a lost faith even on his 

part, his belonging amongst “those who are still dealing with religion” 

notwithstanding, so that all religions could fraternize in the 

temporal action, brushing aside dogmatic conflicts, since “religious 

struggles are forever gone” 26, since it is no longer the case to interest 

the souls in “supreme things” 27, but to put them at the service 

of humanity. 

And that is Paul VI’s Ecumenism! Confusion, that is, all religions 

into converging expressions of the same “spiritual and 

moral values” offered to the “men of goodwill” on Earth. 

And all that Masonic ecumenism, unfortunately, was the canvas 

of his journey to the East, where he even made of Buddhism a religion. 

But it was the “purpose” of his journey, that arousing 

«Fruits of a closer understanding between communities 

of every origin and every religious 

confession in this part of the world; we do 

26 I.C.I., February 15, 1965. 

27 Address of December 7, 1965.

hope, moreover, that (our journey) would foster 

a concurrent action toward progress, justice, 

and peace» 28. 

And at Ceylon, on December 4, 1970: 

«Regardless of caste, FAITH, color and language». 

Coexistence and collaboration, that is, between all religions. 

Paul VI would repeat it in his Address at the Angelus of August 9, 

1970: 

«The conflict engages three ethnic-religious expressions, 

which recognize one sole true God: 

the Hebrew people, the Islamic people, and, 

with these and spread worldwide, the Christian 

people, that is, monotheism, identical monotheism, 

in its three most authentic, most ancient, 

most historical, most convinced voices. Would it 

not be possible that from the name of the very 

same God, instead of irreducible oppositions, 

sprang forth a sentiment of mutual respect, of 

possible agreement, of peaceful cohabitation? 

Could not the reference to the same God, to the 

same Father, without the prejudice of theological 

dispute, one day lead to the discovery, so 

difficult and indispensable, that we are all 

brothers? (…). Dreadful and at one time disheartening 

are the boldness and lightness of 

spirit of men who declare themselves Catholics, 

who dream of establishing on the earth, outside 

of the Catholic Church, “the kingdom of justice 

and love”, with workers from everywhere, of 

28 Address at Téhéran, on November 26, 1970. 

173

174 

every religion and without religion, with or 

without faith, so long as they forget what divides 

them; their religious and philosophical 

convictions, and so long as they share what 

unites them: a generous idealism and moral 

forces, gathered “wherever is possible”». 

Bewildering indeed! The result of that promiscuity in work, the 

beneficiary of that cosmopolitan social action, can be but a “democracy” 

which would be neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish: 

a religion more universal than the Catholic Church, including all 

men, becoming, at last, brothers and comrades in the “Kingdom of 

God” (in the “kingdom of justice and love”?). 

Paul VI, here, gave the halt to working for the true “Kingdom 

of God”, in order to work, instead, for humanity. 

And that was also his appeal to the “Red Guards” of the [Chinese] 

Cultural Revolution, as was his letter to Cardinal Roy: 

«The Church invites every Christian to a double 

task of animation and renovation in order 

to evolve Her structures and adapt them to the 

requirements of our times… The Spirit of the 

Lord, animating man renewed in Christ, shakes 

the horizons in which his [man’s] intelligence is 

keen on finding his self-assurance and the limits 

in which his action would be circumscribed; 

he is seized by a force that pushes him to fly 

past every system and every ideology» 29. 

Religion seems condemned in favor of a chimerical Constitution 

of a “New World”, in which dogmas become obstacles to universal 

understanding and hurdles to brotherhood; in which the Sacraments 

no longer serve any purpose, as men are all equal even without 

drawing from them, in which even the Commandments of God 

are rejected as unbearable constraints. 

29 Oct. Adv. 50 and 37.

In conclusion, with that “Project-Utopia” of Paul VI’s, the Institution 

of the Church would crumble to the ground, for the reason 

that, separated from Her way of thinking, educating, and living, She 

would prevent the Christians from integrating into the world, into 

the secular community. Integral Humanism advocated by Paul VI 

would come to definitively suffocate Religion, and become atheist 

“Humanism”. And while Pius X was canonized for the purity of 

his doctrine and for his fortitude in defending the Catholic Faith, today 

they would be willing to bring to the altar a Paul VI whom, with 

his “Political Utopia”, already expressly condemned by his Predecessors, 

attempted to corrupt the Faith of the Church of Christ. 

175

In the nineteenth century the controversy exploded around the “liberal Catholicism” that 

Lamennais and Ketteler, even if on two different levels, had advocated. Marx and Engels 

called this “pseudo-socialism” Catholics “holy water with which the priest blesses the 

anger of the aristocrats”. The two cartoons (top and bottom) illustrate the two opposing 

ideological positions.

Paul VI, at the UN, talking to the representatives of 117 countries. From the TV, Millions of 

people understood his “Message”. It was a unique opportunity to preach Jesus Christ to the 

world, but Pope Paul VI, however, preached “faith in man”! 

THE MASONIC “UNIVERSAL DEMOCRACY” 

– «To carry out a revolution, the democratic alternative is the most 

desirable and most permanent method; a purely totalitarian 

method,- in the long run, self destructive». 

(Julian Huxley, “Time of Revolution”, Mondadori, 1949, p. 16). 

– «The world is ruled by quite different characters than one could 

not even imagine, whose eyes can not see behind the scenes». 

(Benjamin Disraeli, British Prime Minister). 

– «Member States (...) are no longer arbiters of their own destiny. 

Powers that elude us are engaging in (...) countries of special interests 

and aberrant idealism». 

(Sir Stanley Baldwin, British minister). 

177

178 

«The error that you do not oppose; 

you support». 

(Pope Felix III)

CHAPTER VI 

HIS “TOLERANCE AND COMPLICITY” 

No one can deny, today, that the famous “revision” of Vatican II 

had been an authentic “betrayal”. It is no use attempting to explain 

and justify this state of things. After trying, for many years, to pretend 

that all is well, and that all the Church was suffering from was 

a healthy “crisis of growth”, and, in the end, all would conclude in 

a beautiful blossoming [in the Church], it has now been recognized 

as an insupportable thesis. However they would have one believe 

that all of the current “evil” can neither be attributed to the Pope nor 

to Vatican II, but only to the disobedience of the [Catholic] faithful 

not willing to adapt to what the Council would have wanted. 

Certainly, one cannot lay all the blame for such a disaster upon 

Paul VI alone, even though he, himself, spoke of “self-destruction” 

afoot in the Church; in any case, he surely deserves the “lion’s 

share” in the current decline of the Church. 

Therefore, to only accuse the Pope and the Council of disobedience 

after this visible subverting of doctrine, morals, and ecclesiology, 

with the unhealthy “revisions” that led to an evident destruction 

of the traditional values of the Church of Tradition, would be a 

sign of intellectual shortsightedness or dishonesty. The “facts” and 

the “texts” are still there for all to see. They are therefore the products 

of the Hierarchy of the Church. Undeniably! With the wiping 

179

out of the Holy Office, and its restrictions, which had raised dams 

of protection against the waves of error and evil, for the protection 

of souls, permission was granted for the invasion and submersion of 

the Church into the tidal waves of error and immorality. 

Now, how could Paul VI call for or accept decisions so lacking 

even in common sense? Regrettably, to his own eyes, “human dignity” 

required that all that might resemble offense to man’s “freedom” 

be suppressed, as if today’s man no longer carried “original 

sin” and, therefore, no longer carried any inclination to sin, as if 

man were endowed with a perfect judgment and a universal knowledge 

of all. 

How Paul VI, who let every heresy go free without ever intervening 

against the theoreticians or the propagators, could support 

the Catholic Faith, it is impossible to comprehend. Sure, Paul VI 

undersigned the encyclicals “Misterium Fidei” (September 3, 

1965), “Sacerdotalis Coelibatus” (June 24, 1967), “Humanae Vitae” 

(July 25, 1968), which are a faithful echo of the Catholic Tradition; 

as he also had to suffer for the systematic criticism that came 

about, from some of his Acts of Magisterium, on the part of many 

priests and whole Episcopates. In any case, his affirming the 

“Truth” without ever condemning the errors remains incomprehensible. 

We can similarly express our wonderment for his traditional doctrine 

in his Wednesday “Allocutions” (save for some exceptions), 

while he even allowed to be taught an avalanche of crazy theories 

along with dogmatic and moral nonsense in the churches. It was, 

therefore, an inexplicable tolerance, allowing so many errors that 

Paul VI seemed to reject to spread, at all levels. He allowed them 

to flourish about him all of the time, though these same teachings 

poisoned souls. 

In so acting, his negligence was similar to that which earned 

Pope Honorius the condemnation of the anathema. Nay, Paul VI 

went further, he went as far as favoring the advocates of errors and 

novelties harmful to the doctrine of our Faith. In fact, he even defended 

them and praised them, and many of them he summoned to 

high offices, as if he banded together with them in the common 

cause of a “Conciliar Reform” toward the creation of a “New 

Church”. 

Negligent, inert, and complicit… and friends of Atheists and 

180

Communists, all of this on account of a yearning for “dialogue” 

that allowed him to create peace with the Protestants, avoiding to recall 

the “ancient condemnations” and to repress, with “new condemnations”, 

the protestantization that was afoot in the Church. 

Thus he started and carried forward the demolition of any protection 

defending the Church against “errors”. In fact: 

On December 7, 1965, he suppressed the Congregation of the 

Holy Office, and not only changed its name into “Congregation 

for the Doctrine of Faith”, but also changed, what is most important, 

its regulations 1, so that errors could no longer be condemned 

in the way it was done before. 

«Perfect love wipes away fears… The progress 

of human culture, whose import for religion 

must not be neglected, requires that the faithful 

follow more fully and with additional love the 

directives, if they can well discern the raison 

d’être of the definitions and of the laws…». 

It is a text suggesting, to be sure, to the faithful, to follow the directives 

of the Church, but only “if they can well discern the raison 

d’être of the definitions and of the laws”, or else… they 

would not be bound to obey when those definitions and laws did 

not concur with their own judgments. A text, all in all, which introduced, 

even in the Catholic Church, the “free thought” of 

Protestantism. 

Then, as a logical consequence of that change of the Holy Office, 

Paul VI proceeded to suppress the Index, namely, the catalogue 

of the books the Holy See prohibited the faithful to read, since 

She considered them bad or harmful to their Faith. 

«The main reason that has urged the Congregation 

for the Doctrine of Faith (to cut short the 

reprinting of the Index) – said Cardinal Ottaviani 

1 Motu proprio “Integrae Servandae”. 

181

182 

– is that it no longer responds to the needs… In 

the “Declaration On Religious Freedom”, in 

the “Decree On the Apostolate of The Laity” 

and in the Constitutions on “The Church in the 

Modern World”, the Council has bestowed to 

the laity a greater maturity and higher responsibilities 

in the Church, the Mystical Body of 

Christ» 2. 

An odd act, to say the least, as it seems as if Paul VI had the 

power to bestow upon the faithful a spiritual and intellectual “maturity” 

capable of replacing the Magisterium of the Church. 

For this reason, Cardinal Ottaviani had to explain that 

«In the climate of the Council, the Church will 

formulate some authorized indications, some 

alerts, some advises, some warnings, rather 

than condemnations…» 3. 

However, it seemed to say that the diffusion of bad books, of 

false and erroneous doctrines, would no longer have anything to do 

with the Magisterium. In that way, by abolishing the Index and its 

sanctions, Paul VI favored the spreading of error, turning himself 

into a downright accomplice. 

«The Index no longer carries the force of ecclesiastical 

law with the censures associated with 

it. The Church has confidence in the mature 

conscience of the faithful (!!)» 4. 

Ingenuousness! Here, instead, is the result of that ecclesial 

2 Statement published on “L’Osservatore della Domenica” of April 24, 1996. 

3 Idem. 

4 “Notification of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith”, in “L’Osservatore 

Romano” of June 15, 1966.

“thoughtlessness”: today, one reads anything, completely 

unchecked. And the moral decline, the confusion of religious ideas, 

before so many different religions and theories, is before everyone’s 

eyes. And then, where is the vigilance (It is beyhond incompetence!) 

of many Ordinaries and of the Episcopal Conferences, 

which still have the duty of standing watch? 

And how to explain that, months after the abolition of the Index, 

two articles of the “Canon Law” were also abolished, dealing with 

the condemnation of bad books and with the imposition of sanctions 

upon their authors? In fact, on November 15, 1966, it was again 

Paul VI who declared abrogated Canon 1399 on the prohibition 

of books, and Canon 2318 on ecclesiastical censures, imposed 

upon the authors and apologists of immoral books and upon the 

supporters of false doctrines. 

And he did it through a Decree, which reads: 

«Those who, possibly, were bound by censures, 

as provided for in Canon 2318, containing punishments 

against those in violation of the laws 

on the censures and interdiction of books, are 

absolved by effect of the abrogation of the said 

Canon» 5. 

Hence, even the authors whom, in the past, had been condemned 

by the Holy Office for their scandalous or heretical works, today, 

with the “New Church” of Paul VI, are “absolved”, without asking 

of them neither repentance nor a retraction of their errors. 

This leads one to conclude that, to Paul VI, that which under his 

Predecessors was considered “erroneous” or “hazardous” for the 

Christian souls, under his Pontificate was no longer such. Therefore, 

by absolving the heretical or immoral authors and non-convert 

distributors of bad books, Paul VI signed the approval of the error 

and granted it citizenship rights in the Church. 

5 Decree of the “Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith”, of November 15, 

1996; “Acta Apostolicae Sedis”, December 29, 1966, vol. 58, n. 16. 

183

Another “green light” of Paul VI’s was that of the abolition of 

the “anti-Modernist Oath” that St. Pius X had ordered the clergy 

to take in order to preclude them from the doctrinal errors of Modernism. 

Besides, he had also prescribed a “Profession of Faith”, of 

the Council of Trent, already prescribed by Pius IV. 

Now, Paul VI abrogated these two provisions of Pius X’s as 

well, and replaced them with a brief accommodating and flexible 

formula. To Paul VI, that “anti-Modernist Oath” must have beenacting 

against the “freedom” of the clergy, as it kept the clergy 

from thinking and believing differently, and that was against Vatican 

II. In fact, Vatican II had decreed that: 

184 

«Each one, within the Church… will retain the 

freedom one deems worthy… even with respect 

to the theological elaboration of the revealed 

truth» 6. (?!) 

Bewildering indeed! 

But Paul VI, too, had wanted Vatican II to be only “pastoral”, 

hence he removed the “solemn pastoral formulas that are called 

dogmatic” from it 7. And that, no doubt, was so as not to upset a 

modern man no longer fond of the role of “pupil”, and not to upset 

the sensibility of the “separated brothers”. In fact, in the same 

opening address, Paul VI said: 

«To our Faith, which we hold as divine, we owe 

the frankest and firmest adhesion. But we are 

convinced that She is not an obstacle to the desired 

understanding between our separated 

Brothers and us, precisely because She is truth 

of the Lord and She is, therefore, a principle of 

6 Conciliar “Decree” on Ecumenism: “Unitatis Redintegratio”, November 21, 

1964, n. 4. 

7 Opening address, II Session, September 29, 1963 – Conciliar Documents, n. 

6 p. 109..

unity and not of divergence or separation. In 

any case, we do not wish to make of our faith a 

motive of polemic with them» 8. (?!) 

Now, how could Paul VI say that integral Christian Faith could 

not be an obstacle to those who accept it fully, whereas it would be 

so to those who accept it only in part? Has Our Lord not said, perhaps: 

«For from henceforth there shall be five in one 

house divided, three against two, and two 

against three. The father shall be divided 

against the son, and the son against the father; 

the mother against the daughter, and the 

daughter against the mother; the mother in law 

against her daughter in law, and the daughter 

in law against her mother in law” 9. 

So, only the “Truth” of the Lord is the principle of unity, and 

that only among those who accept it. And yet Paul VI, so as not to 

create “a reason for controversy”, abstained from his teaching 

authority, even though it was his very serious duty. 

But he had already written it in his first Encyclical, “Ecclesiam 

Suam”: 

«… Nor do we propose to make this encyclical 

a solemn proclamation of Catholic doctrine or 

of moral or social principles. Our purpose is 

merely to send you a sincere message, as between 

brothers and members of a common 

family» 10. 


9 Luke 12, 52 and 53. 

10 “Ecclesiam Suam”, n. 7. 

185

But what value could an encyclical have, then, that did not contain 

“specific teachings”? Not a serious affair! However, given the 

content of that encyclical, one can rejoice today that it did not have 

“a solemn and peculiarly doctrinal character”, but a merely “colloquial” 

one. 

186 

«The Church must enter into dialogue with the 

world in which it lives (?!) – It reads - We are 

fully aware that it is the intention of the Council 

to consider and investigate this special and 

important aspect of the Church’s life» 11. 

Words that sound as a departure to the “command” of Jesus 

Christ, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations” 12, and to His imperative, 

“docete”. Paul VI has thus cancelled the “docete” and 

turned it into a “dialogue”, that is, a mere “listening” exercise. 

Hardly an act of “courage”, I should say, that canceling from 

the Gospel Christ’s imperative “docete”, an act I would rather define 

as an authentic betrayal of the Faith. 

Incredible, but true! Neither the supreme Hierarchy, nor the 

scholars of theology have ever stressed that inversion (forced upon, 

besides) between “docete” and “discuss”. Neither did I hear a condemnation, 

with regard to Paul VI’s “Credo”, of what he had written 

in his introduction, in which he sets out with the following 

quaint (Modernistically clear, though) “fine-tuning”: 

«We are about to make a profession of faith, 

and we are about to repeat the formula that begins 

with the word “Credo”, which, without being 

a dogmatic definition in the strict sense of 

the word…» 13. 

11 N. 67-68. 

12 Matthew 28, 19. 

13 Paul VI’s “Profession of Faith”, June 30, 1968.

Astonishing! But “why”? Perhaps out of respect for individual 

“freedom of thought”? But then, what was stirring in Paul VI’s 

mind that urged him to point out that even the articles of faith, 

enumerated in the “Creed” are not a dogmatic definition? 

But even with his appeal (of October 11, 1962), in “Misterium 

Fidei”, he wanted a new language with new formulas to be sought 

out, in order to render the Catholic Faith more accessible and credible 

to modern man. A feat he himself was never able to accomplish. 

In any case, with the excuse of a “revision”, even doctrinal, 

he opened up the doors to all kinds of heresies, granting the greatest 

freedom and real immunity to Christians, as well as complete autonomy 

to scholars and theologians 14. It was then that he abrogated 

all of the instruments and institutions to control doctrine. And that 

marked the end of Authority. It was end of the Norm; Licenciousness 

now ruled. 

But it was also in this manner that Paul VI became united with the 

heretics, having become an accomplice and Protector for them, for the 

reason that he imposed this “new direction” in his “new Church”, 

with a Magisterium wrongfully proposed as “Ordinary”. 

In June of 1969, he had already announced: 

«We are headed toward a period of greater 

freedom in the life of the Church, and, consequently, 

for each of Her children. This freedom 

shall mean less legal obligations and less inner 

inhibitions. Formal discipline shall be softened, 

every arbitrariness abolished… Every intolerance 

and every absolutism shall similarly be 

abolished» 15. 

Lamentably, Paul VI put that anarchical form directly into 

practice; only that, instead of “abolishing every arbitrariness of 

it”, he turned it into a norm. 

14 Address at St. Thomas University, Manila. 

15 “General Audience” of June 9, 1969. 

187

Having made it his duty to become the Pope of the “apertura” 

[opening], of the “universal welcome”, he kept at it, indeed, without 

delay, but only with the representatives of “error” and “vice”, 

as, for example, with the Communist leaders, fierce persecutors, 

soiled with the blood of the Christian Martyrs, offering them the 

warmest hospitality, even though, as soon as the visit was over, they 

would resume the torturing and slaughtering of the faithful children 

of the Church. 

The simpletons had seen, in those gestures of Paul VI’s, a luminous 

sign of charity, whereas, on the contrary, we dispute it precisely 

on the very level of that very virtue. We say: Why did Paul 

VI use that “opening” and such tolerance with those who were distant 

from the Church, while he always made an exception when it 

came to the “Traditionalists”? Was the Traditional Faith such an 

awful “crime”, in his eyes, that he denied them even a brief “visit”, 

while to the representatives of every religion, actresses, 

sportsmen, revolutionaries… he granted every possibility of encounter 

and conference with him? 

For example: 

On June 29, 1970, several hundred Catholic Traditionalists traveled 

to Rome, from all parts of the world, in a pilgrimage, requesting 

also an “audience” with the Pope. They waited for hours and 

hours, in prayer, at St. Peter’s square. To no avail! The audience 

was not granted, nay, it was “denied”. In the same week, however, 

Paul VI received, with open arms, the revolutionary leader of the 

anti-Portuguese rebellion. Even the press reacted. The “Osservatore 

Romano” (July 4, 1970) tried to explain that Paul VI’s gesture 

should not be regarded as wrong, for “the Pope, – wrote the Vatican 

newspaper – as his mission demands, receives all those requesting 

the comfort of a blessing”. 

As one can see, it was a declaration of hypocrisy, which bordered 

on ridicule. The Pope received everybody? And the Traditionalists? 

Another case: on May 30, 1971, another pilgrimage to Rome of 

“Traditionalists” from all over the world. Another entreaty to obtain 

an audience. Another stark refusal. And yet, at that same time, 

Paul VI received, in special audience, two soccer teams, and, to 

follow, the American Jewish Masonic Association of the “B’nai 

B’rith”. 

188

Paul VI himself apologized; saying that he received the former, 

as he was much into sports himself, “soccer, in particular, even 

when it ends up in a brawl”. And that he was also interested in the 

French-Masonic Association of the B’nai-B’rith, since it had 

toiled much, during the Council, to ensure the triumph of the thesis 

of the Jewish Jules Isaac, whom, however, had dared to affirm, 

“Your Evangelists are downright liars!” and again, “Your Fathers 

of the Church are forgers, are iniquitous” 16. 

“Facts” and “remarks” that call for contemplation. 

One more example: In June of 1973, while he again refused to 

receive the representatives of 4,000 Catholic Traditionalists, from 

all over the world, Paul VI received, in special audience, a group of 

Talmudic Rabbis and the Patriarch of Buddhist Monks. 

And so forth and so on. Freemasons, Communists, enemies of 

the Church, were all and always received by Paul VI, with open 

arms, while he always kept the Traditionalists, implacably, at the 

door. 

And while Paul VI received Bishops and priests who supported 

Communism, who gave their blessing to immoral books, or [works] 

erroneous in the Faith, because he was respectful of their “freedoms”, 

with Cardinal Mindszenty, martyr of Communist folly and 

criminality, he sacrificed him onto the altar of his unspeakable 

“Ostpolitik”, to the point of reducing him to the status of a “suspended 

a divinis”! 

It is thus clear that Paul VI always had double standards. To 

achieve his “dream” of a great universal tolerance, he intended to 

eliminate all the “intolerant”, that is, all those who were not prepared 

to compromise with error or to sugar coat their Faith so as not 

to upset the enemies of Christ and of His Gospel. 

But that was and still is the ideal and “plan” of Freemasonry, 

too: to eliminate, that is, all that “divides”, such as the dogmas, 

mainstay of a sole “truth”, the holy intransigence that gave the 

Church millions of Martyrs”. And it was for that very same “plan” 

Paul VI continued to fight, arrogant and blind, in order to achieve 

his illusory “Utopia” of a “Universal Humanism”. 

16 “Journal L’Aurore” of June 3, 1971. 

189

And the “evidence” of his Utopia is indeed in all the “facts” 

that have taken place during his Pontificate: on the one hand, the 

friendship with dissidents, heretics, rebels, atheists and the 

mundane, and opening to all religions; on the other, his constant 

hostility and inflexibility with the defenders of the Catholic 

Faith. 

An opening, his opening, characteristic of a “Masonic Ecumenism”, 

one that calls to mind his true masters: Lamennais, with 

his “Messianism”; Saugnier, with his “Christian Democracy”; 

Jacques Maritain, with his “Integral Humanism”. 

That is to say: 

– Humanity, in lieu of the Church and Christianity; 

– The “Charter of Man’s Rights” as a “New Gospel”, with its 

trilogy: Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. 

– World Democracy, or an earthly version of the “Kingdom of 

God”, and a “Religion” inclusive of every denomination, and as 

inspirer of a renewed Humanity. 

Hence: Humanity in lieu of the Church! 

But Pope Leo XIII, on the contrary, in his encyclical “Humanum 

Genus” (April 20, 1884) had written: 

190 

«The race of man (…) is separated into two diverse 

and opposite parts, of which the one 

steadfastly contends for truth and virtue, the 

other of those things which are contrary to 

virtue and to truth. The one is (...) the true 

Church of Jesus Christ (…) The other is the 

kingdom of Satan». 

But Paul VI had ignored that ever since his “Ecclesiam Suam”, 

in which in practice he rejected the dominion of the Church upon 

the temporal society (“Christianity”), to recognize only a “profane 

World” as a universal social body, autonomous, external to the 

Church. 

It is for this reason that, in his encyclical, Paul VI omitted the 

two “passages” of St. Paul to the Corinthians: 

“And what concord hath Christ with Belial? 

And what agreement hath the temple of God 

with idols?” 17.

And on that line of his, Paul VI, at Bombay, on Dec. 3, 1964, said: 

«Man must meet man, nation meet nation, as 

brothers and sisters, as children of God. In this 

mutual understanding and friendship, in this 

sacred communion (sic), we must also begin to 

work together to build the common future of 

the human race… Such a union cannot be built 

on a universal terror or fear of mutual destruction; 

it must be built on the common love that 

embraces all and has its roots in God, who is 

love». 

It was his “new Humanistic Creed”. He would reiterate it in 

his “Address” to the FAO, on November 6, 1970: 

«Man turns to man as he recognizes him as his 

own brother, as the son of the same Father». 

And since all men, deep down, are good, he, Paul VI, “expert 

in humanism” 18, again said: 

«Yes, peace is possible, for men, deep down, are 

good, they lean toward reason, toward order 

and common good; peace is possible for in the 

heart of the new men, of the young, of those 

who understand the march of civilization…» 19. 

«Democracy, which human communal living 

today appeals to, must open up to a universal 

idea that transcends the limits and the hurdles 

to an effective brotherhood» 20. 

17 II Corinthians 6, 14-16. 

18 1 st Peace Day Address. 

19 Address to the UN of October 4, 1965. 

191

192 

And in one of his addresses, on January 1, 1970, he would repeat: 

«You, the people, have the right to be heard. 

But you have the sacred and legitimate right to 

demand of your leaders that they run the body 

politic in a manner that would cause you no 

sufferings… Well, then, we are the democracy 

(!!) … This means that people are in charge, 

that power comes from the number (?!), from 

the people, such as it is. If we are conscious of 

such a social progress that is spreading everywhere, 

we must give democracy this voice, this 

password: the people do not want the war. The 

masses must impose the principle that there 

must be no more wars in the world». 

Thus God must no longer punish “sins”. 

Thus even if the word of God is the “Non est pax impiis” 21, it 

must no longer carry any significance. 

Thus the supernatural virtues, the Grace of the Sacraments, the 

obedience to God’s Commandments no longer carry a weight in society, 

over this fancied “Universal Democracy” which ignores not 

only “original sin”, but commits countless sins at all times, continuously 

arousing the “punishments of God”. 

And yet Paul VI, though “Vicar of Christ”, has substituted the 

UN – that Masonic Tower of Babel– as supreme hope for humanity. 

That, he had recognized, already, and uttered, on October 4, 

1969, at Manhattan, at the very heart of the UN: 

«The peoples of the earth turn to the United 

Nations as the last hope of concord and peace. 

We presume to present here, together with our 

own, their tribute to honor and of hope. You exist 

and operate to unite the Nations, to connect 

20 Christmas Message, 1964. 

21 Isaiah 48, 22-57, 21.

the States; let us use this second formula: to put 

together the ones with the others. You are an 

Association. You are a bridge between peoples… 

We would be tempted to say that your 

chief characteristic is a reflection, as it were, in 

the temporal field of what our Catholic Church 

aspires to be in the spiritual field: unique and 

universal. Among the ideals by which mankind 

is guided, one can conceive of nothing greater 

on the natural level… In this way a system of 

solidarity is established, so that lofty civilized 

aims may win the orderly and unanimous support 

of all the family of peoples for the common 

good and for the good of each individual. 

This is the finest aspect of the United Nations; 

it is its most truly human aspect; it is the ideal 

that mankind dreams of on its pilgrimage 

through time; it is the world’s greatest hope; it 

is, we presume to say, the reflection of the loving 

and transcendent design of God for the 

progress of the human family on earth, a reflection 

in which we see the heavenly message 

of the Gospel». 

It was a senseless talk that buried all of his dignity as “Vicar of 

Christ”. How could anyone dare praise that Masonic organization, 

whose aim is to attain the enslavement of the peoples, the annulment 

of national autonomies, the dissolution of national sovereignties? 

An organization pursuing dominance over the world and over 

the consciences, pursuing but a political dictatorship, an economic 

dictatorship, an ideological, ethical and moral dictatorship? 

Paul VI, on the contrary, saw it as the ultimate realization of the 

“design of God” on earth, as the ultimate hope for humanity. 

But was it not then his impiety saying that the UN is the political 

image of the Church, the earthly reflection of the Gospel, the real 

and universal expression of the design of God? 

193

194 

THE MASONIC “TOLERANCE” 

– “In the Grand Alliance Treaty signed in Lausanne in 1875, between 

the Supreme Ancient Council and Accepted Scottish Rite, the Convent 

approved the recognition of a superior force of which it proclaims 

the existence under the name of the Great Architect of the Universe. 

The immediate protests that rise from different countries ... the convent, 

after reaffirming the existence of a creative principle, formulated 

immediately, this other principle: «Freemasonry does not impose 

any restriction on the free pursuit of truth, and to ensure that 

freedom to anyone that it expects all tolerance». (Salvatore Farina, 

The Book of Rituals of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, Rome 

Piccinelli, 1946, p. 304). 

– Masonic religious tolerance, in fact, is intolerance, because: «The 

only true religion of Freemasonry is Gnosticism. All other religions, 

especially Catholicism, have taken from Freemasonry all 

that could be true. They [Freemasonry] do not have their own 

theories that are ridiculous or false». (“Freemasonry”, Florence 

1945, p. 69). 

– In 1900, an International Masonic Congress was held in Paris whose 

aim was to establish relationships between the different powers of the 

Masonic world. Soon after the annual convent met at the Grand Orient 

and the speaker [of the meeting] conveyed the reason: «The Vatican 

is the headquarters of an international evil, and a federation 

of all Masonic obedience is absolutely necessary in opposition [to 

it]». 

The Congress, then, also concerned itself with the “secular”. 

The Masonic Blatino churches spread Masonic education to the «secular 

masses, gradually leaving the religions of the past». 

The Freemason Cocq was more explicit: «It is religion itself that 

must be destroyed, that is the belief in superstition and the supernatural 

and dogma» (Applause). «Tolerance - he added - is a 

fundamental principle of our order, but tolerance does not mean 

inaction... religion itself must be destroyed». (E. Delassus, “Il 

problema dell’ora presente”, Desclèe e C. Tipografi-Editori 1907, 

vol. I, p. 37).

On top: A demonstration of the liturgy. Ballerina, Gloria Meyman, teaches ballet to Priests, 

Brothers and Sisters. The dances should symbolize the prayer, adoration, and joy during 

the various “parts” of the Mass. (From: “Twin Circle”, November 14, 1976, p. 7). 

Below: Three Sisters (Sister Eucharistia, from Sydney, Sister Grace Marie, from Baldwinsville, 

Sister Pauline McCornick, from Albany) dressed as clowns that “minister” during 

Mass! (Snapshot published by “Syracuse Herald American” of 09.06.1981).

Above: Cardinal Medeiros, Archbishop of Boston, during a visit to an amusement park. He 

is with some religious! 

Below: Newspaer article saying that Paul VI received a group of youths with shorts and 

indecently dressed.

Top left: a Bishop... on the 

drums! 

Above right: El Salvador: A 

Communist priest distributes 

Communion at a rebel camp. 

Below: A Sister... guerrilla armed 

with rifles. 

Evangelization of armed robbery?.. 

One fruit of the demonic 

“liberation theology”! 

199

202 

«Communism is intrinsically wrong, 

and no one who would save 

Christian civilization 

may collaborate with it in any 

undertaking whatsoever. 

Those who permit themselves to be deceived 

into lending their aid towards the 

triumph of Communism 

in their own country, will be the first 

to fall victims of their error. 

And the greater the antiquity and grandeur 

of the Christian civilization in the regions 

where Communism successfully penetrates, 

so much more devastating will be 

the hatred displayed by the godless». 

(Pius XI, “Divini Redemptoris” - 1937)

CHAPTER VII 

HIS “OPENING TO COMMUNISM” 

In Reinhard Raffalt’s book: “Where is the Vatican Headed?” 

with subtitle: “The Pope Between Religion and Politics”, the German 

author offers a slanted and yet precise judgment as to Paul 

VI’s action in this field. The chapter dedicated to the Vatican Ostpolitik 

is meaningfully titled: “Hamlet on the Holy See”. While it 

stresses the “mens” [mind] of Pius XII on Communism, who defines 

it as “a tragedy for humanity”, which has the consequences 

of “excommunication” for all Catholics professing their Communist 

faith, through his constant refusal of any contact with Communism, 

because it is “intrinsically aberrant”, the chapter goes on to 

show the path followed by the Church under Pius XII’s former collaborator, 

Monsignor Montini, the future Paul VI. 

To Paul VI, that is, Communism represented a hope, for it realized 

(?!) a social justice higher than that realized by Capitalism. Did 

not the Gospel, perhaps, preach a justice on this earth, too? And so, 

would it not be possible to persuade the Communists to adopt the 

Christian ideal of communal life? 

Paul VI, therefore, countered Pius XII’s line with his pragmatic 

line: Communism, albeit atheistic, does not imply, for that 

reason, a basic inability to meet the social expectations contained in 

the Gospel. This was Monsignor Montini’s “contrasting” attitude 

203

toward Pius XII, convinced as he was of the necessity of contributing, 

primarily, to the improvement of the material living conditions 

of the entire humanity. Hence his “secret relations” with the Communist 

Party (PC), ever since he collaborated, or, better said, “betrayed” 

Pius XII. By now, that “betrayal” of Montini’s belongs 

to History. A true and authentic history! It was 1954, and illness 

and old age were already exacting their toll on Pius XII. There was 

Colonel Arnauld, of the French Deuxième Bureau, the Brigadier 

General for the Intelligence Service, and Pius XII’s “James 

Bond”. He was a career officer, then, but, above all, a man of strict 

morals and a practicing Catholic. At the end of the war, he left the 

British and resumed his post within the ranks of the French “Secret 

Services”. It was then, shortly after the armistice, that the “Quai 

d’Orsay” (French Foreign Ministry) entrusted him with a mission 

to Pope Pius XII, to ask him to expel from their dioceses twenty-two 

French bishops, whom Charles De Gaulle’s government held responsible 

of having favored Marshal Pétain’s regime. Having exposed 

to Pius XII the request of his government (received by the 

Pope “very coldly”), Pius XII asked him for he wanted to know 

“the personal judgment of the ambassador, of the Catholic, of 

the officer, whose sister is Mother Superior of a Convent in 

Rome”. The colonel bade for time in order to study the “dossier” 

of the twenty-two bishops. When he returned to Rome, he manifested 

his “judgment” on the case; Pius XII concurred with his judgment 

and had only two bishops removed from France, refusing to 

“punish the others”. 

Shortly after, Colonel Arnauld resigned from the Deuxième Bureau. 

Pius XII, having got wind of it, summoned him to Rome and 

asked him to become his personal agent, answering only to him, because 

–he said– “A diplomat must stick to some rules and be 

very prudent; unlike an agent”. 

The Colonel took on the offer, took an oath to the Pontiff and set 

out on his new mission. During a tour in the East, he entered into a 

relationship with the Lutheran bishop of Uppsala, Primate of Sweden, 

whom, holding Pius XII in great esteem, did not hesitate to 

lend him precious services, such as helping out members of the 

Clergy, held in detention, and the stealthy introduction of Bibles into 

Russia, etc. In the course of one of these meetings (toward the 

summer of 1954), the Archbishop of Uppsala suddenly said to the 

204

colonel, “The Swedish authorities are perfectly aware of the Vatican’s 

relations with the Soviets”. The Colonel promptly decided 

to question Pius XII once he returned from his mission. Back in 

Italy, in fact, he questioned the Holy Father, whom, quite astounded 

by this statement, asked the Colonel to tell Monsignor Brilioth that 

the Vatican had no relations with the Soviets. 

But when Colonel Arnauld returned to Sweden, the Archbishop 

of Uppsala reiterated to him what he had said before, begging him 

to get back to him as soon as he completed his new mission. The 

Colonel accepted and went to see the Archbishop. Monsignor Brilioth, 

then, handed him a sealed envelope, addressed to Pius XII, 

begging him to place it directly into his hands, ensuring that no one 

else in the Vatican knew about it. All Monsignor Brilioth told the 

Colonel, was: «This envelope contains the “EVIDENCE” of the 

relations the Vatican entertains with the Soviets». 

Once in Rome, the Colonel handed the envelope over to Pius 

XII, who read it in his presence, as the color drained from his face. 

In brief: the last official text signed by the Pro-Secretary of 

State, Monsignor Montini, bears the date of September 23, 1954 1. 

On November 1, 1954, Pius XII removed Monsignor Montini as 

the Secretary of State. 

From other information it was learned that, in that disastrous fall 

of 1954, Pius XII had also discovered that his pro-Secretary of 

State “had kept from him all communications relating to the 

schism of the Chinese Bishops” 2, whose case was growing worse. 

Now, the fact that Monsignor Montini had been removed as Secretary 

of State since he had fallen into disgrace with Pius XII 

(whom he “betrayed”), was also admitted by Jean Guitton in his 

book: “Paul VI Secret”, wherein he writes: «No one ever knew, 

nor will ever know why Pius XII, having made him Archbishop 

of Milan, had not made him a cardinal, which took away from 

him the possibility of becoming pope» 3… And, further on, he 

writes: «He (Paul VI) goes through an experience similar to that 

1 “Pontifical Documents”, 1954, p. 640. 

2 CRC, 97, October 1975, p. 12. 

3 “Pontifical Documents”, 1954, p. 407-417. 

205

which Pius XII had inflicted upon him: that of the “diffidentia”, 

as Pius XII seemed to have lost the confidence he had placed in 

him». Sure, Jean Guitton had no knowledge of the “betrayal” of 

his “friend”, that is, of that “Ostpolitik” which, as Colonel Arnauld 

said: «Montini had already a policy of his own, which was 

not that of the reigning Pope. That policy, today, is official, and 

goes by the name of “Vatican Ostpolitik”. And so no reason exists 

anymore to keep these episodes, these facts now consigned to 

History, locked up in a drawer». 

And it is truly so! That is why we talk about it here, as well as 

for the reason that I could personally verify the “truth” of Pius 

XII’s heavy action toward his closest collaborator, through a personal 

“meeting” with General G. Leconte, of the French Secret 

Services. 

I was introduced to him by another agent of the “Secret Services”, 

Officer Masmay, whose guest I was, at his home, many 

times. Now, the General spoke to me, at first, of many things relating 

to the present day Church, as, for example, that the father of 

Cardinal Daniéleu was a Freemason of the Grand Orient, and 

that when he became Minister of National Education, it was he to 

impose the secularization of the schools. To my query if also Cardinal 

Daniéleu was a Freemason, he replied with this passage: “That 

same question –he said – I asked, on the phone, to a friend of mine, 

who, however, hung up on me with no response”. He then went on 

to inform me about many other high Prelates and some Jesuits, 

Freemasons; primarily, - of Freemason Cardinal Villot 4. He told 

me that Villot’s parents were both Freemasons of the Rosecrucians. 

And he told me of an episode, recounted to him by the very 

Officer subject of the “fact”: when this [officer] learned that the 

Bishop of Lione, Villot, had to leave the Diocese to go to Rome, he 

4 That Cardinal Villot were a “freemason” I had learned already from the officer 

of the French “Secret Service” Mr. Masmay, whose guest I had been. He told me, 

more than once, that Villot’s parents belonged to Freemasonry, and that his house 

was contiguous to “Villa Villot”, but that his parents had always forbidden him 

and his brothers to get in touch with the Villots, on account of their being 

“freemasons”. 

206

paid him a visit, to wish him farewell and congratulate him on that 

invitation. But Villot said to him: «Je suis envoyé à Rome pour 

devenir Pape». «And thus – remarked the General with a smile – 

rather than summoned, he was “sent” by the leasders of 

Freemasonry». The General, then, went on to disclose to me a “secret” 

he had learned from a High Officer of the Saudi Arabian espionage 

(an advisor to the King). He told me: «Cardinal Villot will 

not become pope, as he would pursue the opening to the left of 

the Vatican Ostpolitik, which is not at all palatable to the Arab 

anti-Communist world». 

After more confidences on persons of the Catholic Hierarchy 

and other Jesuits, he suddenly asked me this question: «Do you believe 

that Paul VI is a Freemason, too?». And without waiting for 

my answer, he handed me a book of Carlo Falconi: “Vue et Entendu 

au Concile”, [“Seen and Heard at the Council”] published before 

Montini became Pope, and showed me a “passage” of the 

book, on page 69, in which it is said that a big “33” of Freemasonry 

assured that even Montini “serait inscrit dans un Loge 

maçonnique” [“Would be included in a Masonic Lodge”]. 

At last, he recounted to me the story of the removal of Monsignor 

Montini as Secretary of State by Pius XII, as he was really 

working for Russia, unbeknownst to the Pope, and, therefore, 

in betrayal of him. It is a fact that Montini, while Pius XII 

was still living, never set a foot in the Vatican again. 

To my last question: «But why, then, did Pius XII send Montini 

to Milan, such a prestigious Cardinal See, after Montini had betrayed 

him»? The General answered, smiling: «Nay! It wasn’t 

Pius XII to send him to Milan. We have here another “dossier”, 

under the heading “Cardinal Pizzardo”, containing documents 

that say otherwise. After all, it would not have escaped you that 

Pius XII never elevated him to the rank of Cardinal, although Milan 

were traditionally a Cardinal see, hence Montini found himself rejected 

from the Roman Curia and removed, for good, by that very 

Pope he had exerted not a little influence upon; and he was excluded 

by the future Conclave as Pius XII was determined to bar him 

from the Sacred College. Even his consecration to archbishop, after 

his nomination, was almost ignored by Pius XII». 

At that point, the General dialed a telephone number, calling 

Colonel Arnauld, advising him that I would be paying him a call di- 

207

ectly. He rose from his armchair and kindly escorted me to the door, 

saying: «Now, Colonel Arnauld is expecting you, the Colonel 

who brought Pius XII the ‘evidence’ of Montini’s betrayal». 

Presently, in fact, I arrived at the Colonel’s house. He was ill and 

sitting in a wheelchair. His wife was with him. He made me sit opposite 

him, and, after exchanging the usual courtesies, he set out to 

tell me what I previously recounted, confirming, in 22 minutes, that 

Montini entertained obscure, covert relations, of his own initiative, 

with Russia and some other Eastern powers, hence Pius 

XII “expelled” him from office of the Secretary of State. He then 

told me that Pius XII was forced to accept that Montini be sent to 

Milan, but that he did not make him Cardinal, never granted him an 

audience (throughout the remaining four years of Pius XII’s life), 

and he repeatedly made it understood to the Cardinals that he would 

not have him as his successor. 

As one can see, these are not “State disclosures”, since everything 

I heard, with my own ears, on the Montini “case”, is still in 

the “French Archives”. 

208 

*** 

Now, to continue, I would say that there was a sort of prehistory 

in the relationships Paul VI entertained with the Communist Party, 

ever since he was still Monsignor Montini. I quote, in this regard, 

a “document” from Washington’s National Archives, in which 

proof is provided of the future Pope Paul VI’s secret meetings with 

the Italian Communist Leader, Palmiro Togliatti, as far back as July 

of 1944 5. 

These were meetings and conversations that always took 

place unbeknownst to Pius XII, as he was deeply hostile to any 

contacts with the Marxists. 

We provide, here, along with the integral text of the original doc- 

5 I would have you note that the “Historical Compromise” theory, expounded by 

[Italian Communist Party’s secretary] Berlinguer, features almost the identical 

words used by Togliatti [Italian Communist Party’s former secretary] and Montini 

(American magazine “Veritas” of April 1974).

The first page of the American document, quoted from the article, concerning the meeting 

Montini-Togliatti, which occurred July 10, 1944. 

ument, in English, the integral translation of that “document”, very 

compromising, of a meeting “Montini-Togliatti meeting”, which 

took place on July 10, 1944. 

It is subdivided into five paragraphs: 

1) On last July 10, at the house of a Christian Democratic minister, 

the Vatican pro-Secretary of State, Monsignor Giovanni Battista 

Montini, met with Togliatti, Communist minister without port- 

209

folio in the Bonomi Government. Their conversation focused on the 

grounds that bred the agreement between the Christian Democratic 

and the Communist parties. 

2) Ever since his return to Italy, Togliatti had confidential meetings 

with eminent personalities of the Christian Democratic Party. 

These contacts represented the political backdrop of Togliatti’s address 

of Saturday, July 9, at the “Brancaccio” theater [in Rome], and 

the premise for the warm reception of the address on the part of the 

Catholic press. 

3) Through the leaders of the Christian Democratic Party, Togliatti 

succeeded in conveying to the Vatican his impression, according 

to which Stalin’s view as to religious freedom is by now accepted 

by Communism, and the agreement between Russia and the allied 

Nations is marked by a democratic character. Concurrently, the Holy 

See reached Togliatti through the same intermediaries and made 

known its view as to the future agreement with Soviet Russia on the 

issue of Communism, both in Italy and in other Countries. 

4) The discussion between Monsignor Montini and Togliatti is 

the first direct contact between a high Prelate of the Vatican and a 

Communist leader. Having reviewed the situation, they concurred 

upon the practical possibility of a contingent alliance between 

Catholics and Communists in Italy, which could win the three 

parties, Christian Democratic, Socialist and Communist, an absolute 

majority, sufficient to allow them to keep in check any political 

situation. 

5) A “plan” has been drafted to build the platform of a possible 

agreement between the Christian Democratic Party and the Communist 

and Socialist Parties. In practice, they would be following 

the fundamental lines along which an understanding may be created 

between the Holy See and Russia, within the framework of their 

fresh relations. 

It was the first “Historical Compromise”. [Ed. Note: Announced 

in late 1973 by the Italian Communist Party Secretary Enrico 

Berlinguer, it was the project of an historic alliance (worked out 

with Christian Democrat Aldo Moro, then murdered by the Red 

Brigades) with the Socialist and Christian Democrat parties that 

would allow the Communist Party access to government in a way 

that might be acceptable to United States]. But Togliatti pushed his 

210

contacts with the Holy See even farther, through Monsignor Montini, 

the most outspoken anti-Fascist in the Vatican, who made no 

secret of his sympathies toward Socialism. 

Another proof of this is that other very serious “accusation” 

against Montini, for his betrayal of the Homeland. 

And it remains to be explained why the fact that Monsignor 

Montini, besides betraying Pius XII (hence the Church, then governed 

by Pius XII), was also a “traitor of the Homeland”, is not 

taken into account. And yet it should come as no surprise that Monsignor 

Montini was “enlisted” by the “Secret Services” of the 

United States as a privileged “informer” of the Vatican, during 

the years of World War II. 

I transcribe here what the “Gazzettino” of June 1 st 1996, wrote, 

under the title: “Montini was an American Spy”: 

«… To propose a collaboration with Pius XII’s 

most influential advisor, Secretary of State “in 

pectore”, was done, in early 1942, directly by 

William Donovan, creator of the OSS (Office of 

Strategic Services). Montini’s task was that of 

providing any useful “information” as to the 

movements of the Germans in Rome, and to 

gather the “voices” circulating in Benito Mussolini’s 

circles, as well as in Crown’s circles. 

The “revelations” are contained in some “documents”, 

unpublished, discovered in the Washington’s 

“National Archives” by the editors Ennio 

Caretto and Bruno Marolo, authors of the 

book: “Made in USA. The American Origins of 

the Italian Republic”». 

Another “betrayal” that does not certainly play into the hands of 

those pushing for his “beatification”: a Paul VI who “betrayed” 

Pius XII, and a Paul VI who “betrayed” his Homeland. 

***

Now, to continue the discussion of the “secret meetings” between 

Togliatti and Montini, we note that Prelate a personal friend 

of the communist leader’s, namely Monsignor Giuseppe de Luca, 

arranged those contacts. 

But it would be Pope John XXIII –from whom Montini received 

his purple – to open even wider to Montini the path of the “dialogue” 

with the Communist world, after his famous encyclical 

“Pacem in Terris” of April 10, 1962, in which Communism, 

though not directly named, is however considered in full dialectical 

evolution, that is, no longer synonymous with Karl Marx’s doctrine, 

although retaining its principles 6. 

Paul VI’s Pontificate would thus follow that path, cleared by 

John XXIII, who had commenced difficult negotiations with both 

the Patriarch of Moscow, and with that of Constantinople, 

Athenagoras. The aim was to ensure some “Observers” at the 

Council, planned for the fall of 1962. For that reason, J. Willebrands 

was sent to Moscow to negotiate with Archbishop Nicodemus. 

Along that Giovannean line, then, proceeded the entire Paul 

VI’s pontificate, always meeting the wishes of the Kremlin, anxious 

to secure “the possibility of inducing the Church of Rome to facilitate, 

through ecumenism, the acceptance of the Communist reality 

by the Catholic public opinion in the satellite Countries, and, in 

general, to guide the Vatican onto diplomatic positions convergent 

with those of the USSR in the field of disarmament and 

maintenance of a “Pax Sovietica”. 

Paul VI made a show of his spirit of reconciliation with the 

Communist world, for example, on the occasion of the “Episcopal 

Synod” of Rome, in the Fall of 1971. The theme was “Justice 

and Peace”. The Vatican had given instructions to impress on the 

Synod a strong anti-capitalist spin, in dealing with the injustices 

caused to the undeveloped Countries by the most technologically 

6 That Encyclical had been preceded by the mentioned “private audience” of 

Krusciov’s son-in-law, Alexis Adjybei. It should be known that that audience 

ended with Pope John XXIII’s words, “Only opposite conceptions stand between 

us. It is not so big a deal!” (?!!). 

212

advanced nations. But Archbishop Maxim Hermanioux, Metropolite 

of the Ukrainians, attending the works, had the courage to react, 

saying: 

«I find it highly surprising that, in the project 

and in the base account, one would deal with all 

the possible forms of injustice: political, cultural, 

economical and international, but not with 

the most deplorable to a Christian: the persecution 

of the Church of Christ»! 

Archbishop Hermanioux was speaking for the faithful of the 

Ukrainian Catholic Church, who remained in Russia, persecuted by 

the Communists, and certainly, he was alluding to the events of the 

previous years. In 1970, in fact, the Patriarch of Moscow, Pimen, 

had announced, during his investiture, that the Ukrainian Catholic 

Church “was no more”. And Cardinal Willebrands, Pontifical negotiator 

since 1962, official envoy of Paul VI, at the ceremony, had 

failed to react, neither on the spot, nor after his return to Rome. 

Paul VI, in this way, gave victory to atheist Moscow, persecutor 

of the Catholic faithful. 

But in Rome Cardinal Joseph Slipyi (following 17 years of incarceration 

in Soviet concentration camps, and narrowly escaping 

execution), was already directing a large community of Ukrainian 

faithful who had emigrated to Canada, to the United Stated and 

above all to Australia. The Hierarchy of his Church, in June of 

1971, approached Paul VI, on behalf of the entire community, requesting 

the nomination of the great archbishop to Patriarch (a 

dignity whose functions, in reality, Slipyi was already carrying out), 

but Paul VI, on July 7, rejected the request, which he considered 

“impossible, at least at this point and time”. 

Slipyi, then, convened a particular “Ukrainian Synod” (as it 

was, on the other hand, his prerogative). Paul VI, in vexation, had 

it promptly declared illegal. But the Ukrainians went on with it, 

and that action carried not a little consequence upon the works of 

the Council. 

Paul VI, however, never forgot it, and one year later he took 

his revenge. The Freemason Cardinal Villot, his Secretary of 

State, addressed a statement to the Ukrainian bishops informing 

213

them that: «The Ukrainian Church has no longer authority upon 

its Bishops outside of the Holy See». With that action, Paul VI 

stripped Cardinal Slipyi of any authority and his Church lost all 

its autonomy. And so the Soviets had been satisfied. And in that 

way, perhaps, Paul VI believed – in this umpteenth illusion of his – 

to foster relations between the Vatican and the Kremlin. 

In any case, that was the style of his pragmatism, which he always 

practiced in his relationships with Moscow. As in regard to the 

appointments of the Bishops in Lithuania, he approved the Soviet 

choices, despite their perverted continuous political control. And 

when, in May of 1972, an Ukrainian student set himself ablaze, publicly, 

in protest against Moscow’s oppression toward the Church, the 

utter “silence” of the Vatican was more than eloquent, to anyone. 

But Paul VI would always put up with anything. Even when 

Moscow used a contemptuous demeanor with Archbishop Casaroli, 

on the occasion of the signature of the Treaty of Non-Proliferation 

of Nuclear Arms, at Moscow, Paul VI abstained from any reaction. 

Silence, always silence! Even in the face of the continuous persecutions 

against the Catholic faithful, who were being thrown into 

camps, tortured, shipped to Siberia, and murdered. One could 

hardly count the most distinct and obvious gestures in favor of the 

Soviets, on the part of Paul VI. He even removed his cardinals 

from their sees, precisely on account of their intransigence toward 

the local Governments, thus depriving them of any influence. Consequently, 

on December 18, 1974, he “relieved” Cardinal Mindszenty, 

from his office of “Primate”. 

In vain Cardinal Mindszenty put up a resistance, in name of the 

“damage to religious life and the confusion such a measure 

would cause in the souls of the Catholics and clerics faithful to 

the Church”. Lamentably, Paul VI would have the upper hand with 

his “Ostpolitik” always kneeling before the criminal “reason of 

State” “Good of the State”. 

And so, on January 5, 1974, the Holy See publicized Paul VI’s 

decision, breaking the “news” of the removal of Cardinal Mindszenty 

from the Primatial Episcopal See of Esztergom. 

Mindszenty would note, in his “Memoirs”: «I begged him 

(Paul VI) to recede from that decision, but to no avail». 

A laconic hint to his inner drama, illuminating, however, his ultimate 

immolation on the Cross of Christ. 

214

Unfortunately, on June 8, 1977, Paul VI even lowered himself 

to receive Janos Kadar. No Communist Party Secretary had ever 

crossed the threshold of a Pope’s private study. Sadly, the first overture 

would have taken place, outside the norm, between John XXI- 

II and Agiubei. Kadar would be the second. He, the assassin in 

pectore, was the warden, of Cardinal Mindszenty, the great 

“Confessor” of the “Church of Silence”. That gesture of Paul 

VI’s, however, constituted a shame for his inhumane and scatterbrained 

Ostpolitik, which left hundreds and hundreds of thousands 

of Catholics in the camps and under torture, without a minimal 

solemn protest, public, before the world, in order to remain faithful 

to his pro-Soviet political line that would end up, however, disastrously, 

into a heap of rubble, stained in the blood of its “Martyrs”. 

Among these, stands out the great Cardinal Mindszenty, humiliated 

by Paul VI before the whole world, with his “deposition” 

from the office of “Primate of Hungary”. He who had never accepted 

the about-turn of a Church on Her knees before the world. 

He, the symbol and banner of an intrepid and irreducible Catholicism, 

who had never stooped before the persecutors of the “Church 

of Silence”, or to the “priests of the peace”, the new unworthy 

preachers of a Gospel in a sociological and Marxists key. 

GLORY TO YOU, CARDINAL MINDSZENTY, CONFESSOR 

AND MARTYR! 

And yet, this Great Confessor of the Faith, laid to rest on May 

15, 1975, in the Hungarian Chapel of St. Ladislao, at Mariazell 

(Austria), instead of an eulogy – as he deserved – saw then, not 

even a “Representative” of the “new” Hungarian Catholic 

Church, which never even sent a wreath and a word. The Apostolic 

Nuncio to Austria did not even attend. Only the “free world” – 

4,000 Hungarians exiled throughout the world, 250 priests and 

about a hundred nuns – had convened before the tomb of that Apostle-Martyr 

of our times. 

*** 

But by now, on the wave of Vatican II, the Holy See had taken 

the path of the “dialogue” even with the Communist criminal power, 

through compromises and collaboration. And thus any anti-Com- 

215

munist position was regarded as outdated and unrealistic; and, because 

of the utopia of a possible “normalization” of the ecclesiastical 

position with the Soviet States, the Church of Paul VI left our 

Martyrs of the Faith to their fate in exchange for an illusory freedom-on-parole 

7. 

Hence in that new climate of submission and treachery, the position 

of Cardinal Mindszenty had become embarrassing for their 

dull “dialogue” between Rome and Budapest. And for that reason 

Monsignor Casaroli had called on the Cardinal, proposing him a dishonorable 

proffer of “freedom” in exchange of his renunciation of 

his intransigence toward Communism. But the dignified figure of 

Mindszenty disdained that disgraceful “blackmail”, and rejoined 

that a “Reigning-Cardinal” could not abandon his flock. But Paul 

VI, in 1971, also urged by the Freemason Cardinal Köenig, sent 

in Monsignor Aàgon to bend the Cardinal, guaranteeing him freedom 

in the West, and the preservation of the title of “Primate of 

Hungary”, as well as the care of the Hungarian communities, exiled 

and emigrated. With that, however, Paul VI wanted him to 

hand over his office to a successor acceptable to the Budapest 

regime, leave Hungary without any statements, and, once in the 

West, abstain from any action that “could upset the relations between 

the Apostolic See and the Hungarian Government, or 

could cause any harm to the Government of the People’s Republic 

of Hungary”. As a last requirement, Cardinal Mindszenty 

would not publish his “Memoirs”, rather, he was to leave the 

legacy to the Vatican, which would then proceed as it saw fit 8. 

7 See, for the story of this tragedy, the book of the Jesuit Father Alessio U. Floridi: 

“Moscow and the Vatican”, “La Casa di Matriona” Editions, Milan 1976. 

8 J. Mindszenty, “Memoirs”, Rusconi, Milan 1974, p. 356-357. – In the published 

text some pages are missing, the gravest, on account of Paul VI’s specific and reiterated 

will. I learned it, “apertis verbis”, from Cardinal Mindszenty in person, 

whom, in my personal encounter with Him, at Vienna, on December 14, 1971, 

following two and half hours of passionate and enlightening conference, told me, 

“Believe me: Paul VI has delivered the Christian Nations into Communism’s 

hands”! 

216

Cardinal Mindszenty, a worthy man in spite of it all, declined 

the offer, both because he did not intend to submit his actions and 

statements to the judgment of a criminal Marxist Government, and 

because his renunciation under those kinds of Soviet “censures” 

would have been an act of infamy, and because his silence and his 

omissions would have been received as a scandal by his faithful, 

and read as a caving in to the Kadar-dictatorship. And so he even refused 

to sign the record of that interview. But the other Freemason-Cardinal, 

Casaroli, determined to bend his resolve, turned to 

US President Nixon so that the Cardinal would be forced out of the 

American Embassy. And that is what happened. Mindszenty, having 

lost diplomatic asylum, was compelled to give up, and on 

September 28, 1971, He arrived in Rome. Paul VI feigned to renew 

his role and his freedom; instead, barely two weeks later, 

the Holy See announced the resumption of diplomatic relations 

with Budapest. Besides disgracefully lifting the excommunication 

Pius XII had inflicted against the cleric who collaborated 

with the Kadar regime, months later, he also reneged on the 

promise of leaving Mindszenty as the spiritual caretaker of the 

Hungarians exiles in the West. But he did not stop there, as he 

added the humiliation of forcing him to submit any sermon or 

speech he were to utter in public to preliminary Vatican censure 

9. 

At this point, the Cardinal left Rome, and made contacts with his 

emigrant and exiled people. But Paul VI promptly resumed his attacks 

on the Cardinal – whose shoes he was unworthy to kiss – 

and on November 1, 1973, he forced him to resign from his position 

as Archbishop-Primate of Hungary. Dignifiedly, yet firmly, 

Cardinal Mindszenty, on December 8th, replied to Paul VI that he 

could not give in spontaneously to his intimidation; and he illustrated 

to him the heavy consequences his collaborationist policy with 

the Marxist Regime would bring about 10. But Paul VI (who had betrayed 

Pius XII already, precisely for his covert maneuvers with 

9 Joseph Mindszenty, “Memoirs”, p. 363-367. 

10 Joseph Mindszenty “Memoirs”, p. 370-371. 

217

Moscow), on December 18 informed him, cynically, that Hungary’s 

Primatial See had been declared vacant already, and, 

therefore, he must consider himself dismissed. Mindszenty took 

note of Paul VI’s unspeakable action, bequeathing to him any responsibilities 

for the consequences, but informed the press that the 

“measure” against him had been taken unilaterally, against his 

own will. After which, he felt free to publish his “Memoirs”, in 

which he narrates – in the closing chapter – also “persecutions” he 

suffered on the part of the Vatican diplomacy and on the part of 

the apologists of the “Ostpolitik”! 

And now, let us again ask ourselves: Is this the Paul VI one 

would be willing to “beatify”? Is it perhaps on account of those 

excesses of “charity” he had toward that capital defender of the 

Catholic Faith, diabolically encroached on by the Satanic Marxist 

Empire? Lamentably, Paul VI would continue to ill-treat that 

Martyr of the “Church of Silence”, placing on the Hungarian Primatial 

See, in early 1976, as his successor, that darling of the 

Freemasons Cardinal Köenig’s, Laszlo Lekai, former spokesman of 

the Kadar Government by the Holy See, and defender of the illfamed 

“priests of the peace”, lackeys of the Marxist regime. Additionally, 

in 1977, Paul VI would welcome Kadar at the Vatican, in 

full pomp, that Satanic persecutor of Mindszenty, that is, to whom 

Paul VI reaffirmed even his confidence (!!) in the “dialogue on the 

issues, open to the comprehension of the cares and of the action 

of the State that are now appropriate” 11. 

218 

*** 

That is the real Paul VI. A Pope whom, in defense of his Ostpolitik, 

always blind and a partner in crime with the enemies of 

Christ, let millions and millions of Catholics rot in the Soviet gulags, 

and millions more murdered, and let those Red pirates lay their 

hands, without ever uttering a word, upon so many Nations, and 

place them under the bloody Communist yoke. 

11 “Corriere della Sera”, June 10, 1977.

*** 

And to his Ostpolitik, Paul VI sacrificed also Cardinal Slipyi, 

Primate of the United Church of Ukraine. Arrested shortly upon being 

ordained Bishop, in 1940, and again on April 11, 1945, and sentenced 

to eight years in prison and forced labor in the harshest Soviet 

labor-camps, in Siberia, Polaria, Asia and Mordovia. After that, 

he was again sentenced into exile to Siberia, and, in 1957, there was 

a third conviction to seven “years imprisonment and forced labor”, 

and, at last, he suffered a fourth conviction with the incarceration 

in the harshest prison of Mordovia. 

Now, even this pastor-Martyr of the “Church of Silence”, 

who spent so many years in prisons, labor camps and mental institutions, 

and who defended, up until his death, after tortures and Soviet 

prisons, his Ukrainian Catholic homeland and the Church, with 

unfaltering faith and indomitable Episcopal conscience, was ordered 

into silence, always in the name of the Vatican Ostpolitik. 

He nonetheless continued, as best he could, to denounce the absence 

of any religious freedom in the USSR and the bloody “persecutions” 

the Ukrainian Catholic Church was suffering, until when, in 

1953, he, too, was confined in Rome, in the Vatican. With that 

move, Paul VI had in fact placed him under “house arrest”, under 

continuous surveillance, and prevented by the Ostpolitik 

from working directly for his Ukrainian and Catholic people. 

*** 

That same fate occurred to Cardinal Stephen Trochta, another 

heroic Cardinal, shamefully mistreated by the Montinian Ostpolitik, 

without the minimal respect and veneration, after so many 

years of prison and labor camps throughout most of his episcopal 

life. He spent, in fact, three years at Dachau’s concentration camp. 

Having become bishop of Litomericka, in 1947, the Communists arrested 

him in 1951, and he underwent continuous interrogations for 

three years. In 1954, he was sentenced to 25 more years of forced labor, 

for “treason and espionage in favor of the Vatican”. After 

those tortures, he was interned in a convent, at Radvanov. It was only 

during the “Prague Spring”, in 1969, that he was rehabilitated 

and made cardinal; but he was still continuously followed, spied up- 

219

on, prevented from exercising his functions. In April of 1974, after 

the last criminal interrogation, which was to last 6 hours, he suffered 

a break down. The following day, this hero of the Faith passed away. 

Well, Paul VI had nothing to say about his Cardinal-Martyr, 

whereas, on that very day of his passing, he sent out a telegram to 

the wife of Justice Sossi, abducted by the Red Brigades [Brigate 

Rosse – Italian Marxist-Leninist terrorist group formed in 1969, 

seeking the establishment of a revolutionary state through armed 

struggle and to separate Italy from the Western Alliance] 

And then one talks of Christian “charity”! In Paul VI there 

was never a minimal sensibility or respect toward that heroic defender 

of the Faith, and it is difficult to find the words to stigmatize 

Paul VI’s shameful Papal silence and inaction. 

But that was always his cynical behavior with those that did not 

share his views. Neither did he ever have a word, a reaction, or a cry 

of pain for the persecuted and the Martyrs of the “Church of Silence”, 

aching and bleeding to this day, sole true seed of a new 

Christian Russia. 

220 

*** 

Even at the international level, Paul VI’s heart always beat to 

the left. We recall, for example, his stance on the Vietnam War, 

when the Catholic Van Thieu, President of the Republic of South 

Vietnam, went on a visit to the Vatican. Paul VI treated him with 

dissimulated rudeness, while, on the contrary, he honored the Chief 

of the North Vietnamese delegation to the Paris conference, Xuan 

Thuy, with a warmhearted personal mention, paying homage, in this 

manner, to Hanoi’s stance on peace. 

The same style of deferent collaboration with Communism, 

Paul VI applied in all of his relations, not only with Moscow, but 

with the whole of the Communist world. And yet, in all of the 

Countries submitted to the Soviets, the failure of the Vatican 

was continuous and shameful. In spite of that, Paul VI continued 

to regard the USSR as a “Holy Russia”, utopistically comprised of 

Christianity and Socialism, underestimating, however, the will of 

dominance of Communism, and showing his blindness as to the 

global character of its perverted doctrine, which he envisioned, 

however, as the matrix of universal history.

And it is with his pro-Communist “mens” [mind] that Paul VI 

turned to the Chinese communists, as well. It is no secret that Beijing 

had created a “National Chinese Church”, independent of 

Rome and faithful to the Communist State. It is no secret that, since 

1957, 45 Chinese clerics were consecrated bishops, unbeknownst to 

the Pope. Rome had stood silent, without acknowledging or approving. 

Then came the “Cultural Revolution”, which soon developed 

into a total interdiction of the cult until 1965. Paul VI, at that 

stage, took his first steps, granting his blessing, in his celebrated appeal 

to “peace” before the UN, to the admission of China into the 

United Nations. Paul VI, however, awaited in vain a sign of gratitude 

from Beijing. At that point, Paul VI raised the Apostolic representation 

in Taiwan to the rank of Nunciature, which meant he had 

taken notice of the sovereignty of the Chinese Nationalists over the 

territory claimed by Beijing. 

In 1966, he took another “step” in the direction of Mao. It was 

on the occasion of the commemoration of the first six Chinese bishops. 

At St. Peter’s Basilica, Paul VI declared that the Chinese youth 

ought to know “with what care and love we consider their present 

drive toward the ideals (!!) of a united and prosperous 

life”(!!). 

But even that exhortation went unanswered. 

In 1971, Communist China was admitted into the UN. The Vatican 

promptly saluted the event voicing out its satisfaction, even 

tempered by the regret for the exclusion of Taiwan. 

In any case, China in 1970 had already started a great offensive 

against the USSR, shifting closer to the United States. 

In that period, in the summer of 1970, there was a meaningful 

“occurrence”. Marshal Tito had received Monsignor Casaroli, then 

Minister of the Foreign Affairs of the Holy See, at Brioni, his summer 

residence. The head of the protocol begged him to wait a moment 

in the antechamber, before the Yugoslav President would see 

him. The door suddenly opened, and there materialized, totally unexpected, 

the Chinese Ambassador to Belgrade. They remained 

alone for a few minutes. Shortly after, however, the Vatican policy 

turned in the direction of China. But the Soviet reaction was not 

long in coming. Hence the visit of Gromiko, Minister of Foreign Affairs, 

to the Vatican. At the time, Italy recognized China and the 

Holy See was not indifferent. But when Monsignor Casaroli trav- 

221

eled to Moscow, shortly after, for the signature of the Treaty against 

the proliferation of the nuclear weapons, the Minister of Religious 

Affairs reserved for him a humiliating reception. 

The evolution toward Beijing, however, continued. The Russians 

were vexed and the Russian ambassador in Rome, whom in theory 

had no business with the Vatican, paid the Vatican various calls, during 

the winter of 1971-72. Paul VI oscillated between Moscow and 

Beijing, but when he perceived the hostility of the Russians towards 

the contacts between Beijing and the Vatican Curia, he resorted to a 

kind of reservation, which was ill accepted by China. That Chinese 

diffidence became apparent when President Nixon traveled to China. 

The Holy See was not informed, and Casaroli learned the news 

from the international press. 

222 

*** 

I relayed, here, with some particulars, only a few aspects of Paul 

VI’s relations with Communism and his objective of aperture and 

concessions to the Communist States. Even when he speaks to 

the right, - as Congar himself wrote – he acts, however, to the left; 

and “facts” speak louder than words. Thanks to his apparent neutralism 

and pacifism, during his Pontificate, however, subversion, 

aggression, and violence always had the upper hand, so that the 

Free World knew nothing but defeat and withdrawal. And while 

Paul VI did nothing in order that this world would recover from its 

immorality, religious indifference, incredulity, and from its resistance 

to the Laws and Rights of God, he stirred the peoples not in 

the name of God, but of justice. And even his justicialism was far 

from being dictated by the zeal of God, or by that of the salvation 

of the souls, but it carried all the spin of a social revolution. 

I recall, here, a few other enigmatic and perplexing “positions” 

of Paul VI’s: 

On July 29, 1969, he traveled to Uganda, and there, he manifested 

great respect toward “Prime Minister” Obote, a thief and 

bloodsucker, who his people would overthrow shortly after. And 

there, in the African heartland, Paul VI launched a “message” of 

racial liberation and equality, which carried the flavor of an appeal 

to a general social upheaval against the white man, in Rhodesia, 

in the South African Republic, and in Mozambique.

The French daily “LaCroix” of August 4, 1969, wrote: 

«Paul VI did not fear to expose himself. And so 

he forcefully recalls, against Portugal and 

Rhodesia, that the Church supports the independence 

of the national territories. Although 

some pauses are sometimes necessary. The 

Church, on Her part, has contributed to the independence 

of the African countries affirming 

the dignity of persons and peoples, and making 

them discover their own dignity. And She provides 

an example of this by Africanizing Her 

own Hierarchy and setting out to do so where it 

has not been possible hitherto. No African State 

has anything to fear from the Church, quite the 

contrary». 

And it continued: 

«That courageous address aroused not only the 

satisfied applauses of the audience, but also a 

great joy amongst the African journalists present, 

who rushed to telephones and teleprinters 

to “spread it out to the entire Africa”; to say it 

with the closing expression of the address». 

Paul VI, to be sure, reclaimed the independence of the Africans 

and the end of all racial discriminations, as requirements of Justice 

and Peace. And we find nothing wrong with that, save for the fact 

that Paul required them in obedience to the International Institutions. 

Now, this meant an unconditional submission to the decisions 

of the UN, which, with its “democratic laws” (!!) not only places 

the Law always on the side of their upheaval and claims, but also to 

the benefit of the “Maquis” [Rural/mountain guerrilla bands of 

Belgian and French anti-Nazi resistance in World War II; also of 

Spanish resistance against Francisco Franco’s Fascist regime] of liberation 

and of every other terrorist of color, as we can witness, even 

today, in the Zaire, in Congo, and so on. 

And so Paul VI’s “anti-colonialism” was similar to that of the 

223

UN, that is, of the great international Capitalism, of Communist imperialism, 

Russian and Chinese, and to that of the leftist intelligentsia. 

Anti-colonialism, that is, of that “World” that loves, supports, 

justifies and arms the terrorists, the slaughterers of children 

and women, the savages. And Paul VI received that “World” in 

the Vatican. 

For example: On July 1, 1970, he welcomed the three Leaders of 

the terrorist Movements of Angola, Mozambique, Guinea-Bissau 

and Cape Verde. He admitted them to the hand kissing ceremony 

[blessing] that followed the general audience. 

In response to the surprise voiced by the media, the “Osservatore 

Romano” promptly wrote: «… Any interpretation, of surprise or 

endorsement, had no reason to be», since – explained the newspaper 

– «The Pope, for his mission, receives all those demanding the 

comfort of his blessing…». «And that was the case with the people 

at issue…». Yes, but, to start with, that was not a general audience 

in the strict sense of the word, nor were those “three” received 

as Catholics, as they had been qualified, instead, in the request. 

“La Croix” of July 9 wrote, however: 

224 

«It must be noted that Portugal… although 

proclaiming itself a Catholic country, shies 

away from the colonial policy and the repeated 

teachings of the Pope as to Man’s rights and 

Peoples’ rights. It is significant that Paul VI 

had handed the three African leaders a copy of 

the Encyclical “Populorum Progressio”... But 

the audience of July 1 – pursues La Croix – has, 

before the Portuguese government, the significance 

of a warning: in fact, it signals to the Nationalists 

that they are not considered impious, 

excluded from the Christian community, and 

that the Church does not approve of the colonial 

order established in the “Portuguese territories”». 

It was plainly an apparent neutralism on the part of Paul VI, a 

neutralist departure from International Law and a tacit approval of 

terrorism, active in those regions.

I lack, here, the space to piece back together the history of that 

political about-turn from West to East of Paul VI’s diplomacy, of his 

unhurried and yet continuous rehabilitation of atheistic Marxism, 

which went as so far as to authorize Catholic Christians to join the 

Communist party, as, for example, by installing, in a Czechoslovakian 

Bishopric a President of the “Pacem in Terris” Association, 

that is, an agent of Communism infiltrated into the Church 12. 

Certainly, Paul VI’s fixed idea on Communism was still that 

contained in the “Pacem in Terris”, namely, the distinction between 

historical movement (fixed) and ideology (in continuous 

evolution) 13; hence he believed Communism could evolve and improve, 

and for that reason he held out his arms to it, received its 

emissaries, cooperated with it toward an alleged justice and peace 

in the world. What a delusion! 

But for that, Paul VI exposed himself to continuous scandals. As 

in that “civil marriage”, in 1965, of Father Tondi, former collaborators 

of his at the office of Secretariate of State, who opted out of 

priesthood in order to join Communism. Monsignor Montini obtained 

for him an extraordinary dispensation of the religious 

form 14, quite unusual indeed - an exceptional service to his collaborator 

(his and Moscow’s) that aroused doubts as to its finality. 

Another scandal, Paul VI made through Monsignor Glorieux, 

who covered him when there was a “fraudulent removal of the 

‘Petition’ of no less than 450 Bishops calling for the condemnation 

of Communism from the Council, in September of 1965” 15. 

That scandal produced its effect. The Pope – they said – did not 

want that the Council to condemn Communism; hence Communism 

is no longer condemned. 

Now, all that was the consequence of his first Encyclical, the 

“Ecclesiam Suam”, which opened up to dialogue, reconciliation, 

12 Conference of Monsignor Matagrin, January 16, 1973, Mutualité; CRC 66, 

p. 3; DC 73, 343. 

13 DC 63, 541. 

14 Canon 1138. 

15 Comment of “Gaudium et Spes”, Unam Sanctam Collection, t. II, p. 120, n. 120. 

225

and cooperation with Communism. An opening that was taking 

shape, more and more boldly, in his social documents, oblivious of 

the issue of the persecuted Christians, of their sufferings, of their 

persecutions, so as not to stop or be hindered in his policy of rapprochement 

and cooperation with the Communist States. 

The truth of the “facts” we have been narrating, however, dispels 

any doubt. It will suffice to recall once more the forced transfer 

of Cardinal Mindzenty, from “Primate” of Hungary to Rome. 

It will suffice to recall once more the cry of Cardinal Slipyi, that 

other Confessor of the Faith, that Soviet camps runaway whom, before 

the Synod, cried out his indignation to the traitors who cut 

a peace treaty with the persecutors, oblivious of their faithful, 

whom Soviet Communism persecuted and tortured: 

226 

«Out of 54 million Catholic Ukrainians - said he 

– ten million have died as a consequence of persecutions. 

The Soviet regime has suppressed all 

dioceses. There is a mountain of dead bodies 

and there is no one left, not even in the Church, 

to uphold their memory. Thousands of faithful 

are still detained or deported. But the Vatican 

Diplomacy (hence Paul VI) has chosen silence, 

not to upset its dealings. The times of the catacombs 

are back. Thousands and thousands of 

faithful of the Ukrainian Church are deported 

to Siberia and as far north as the Polar Circle, 

and yet the Vatican ignores this tragedy. Have 

the martyrs, perhaps, become inconvenient witnesses? 

Could we have become an albatross to 

the Church?». 

How tragic! The “Church of Silence” in such a state in order 

not to upset the “Silence of the Church”. It was a crime, however, 

which condemns Paul VI’s entire Secretary of State. Their 

opening to Communism begot a world of declarations, intrigues, 

occurrences that would make anyone who heard the thud of the 

tombstones Paul VI caused to fall back upon the “witnesses” 

that sacrificed their life to Christ, turn crimson. Like his secret 

dealings with the then Secretary of the Italian Communist Party

(PCI), Enrico Berlinguer, who, for six years, was his diplomatic 

agent for the Communist Government of Hanoi 16. 

When Paul VI decided to build a hospital in communist 

North Vietnam, at war, because the United States bombarded it, 

causing carnages, he showed, through that gesture, that his “neutralism” 

was biased, invariably in the direction of Communism. 

By now, Paul VI had become a driving belt of the Communist 

campaign “for Peace”, that is, for the elimination of the various 

national armies, so that the Masonic UN could triumph, even 

through the worldwide expansion of Communism. 

Hence, his appeal to China, his joy at the announcement of 

the “Cultural Revolution”, in spite of its plunders, its profanations, 

its countless massacres. 

We again recall, here, his address on the Epiphany of 1967: 

«We would like the Chinese youth to know with 

how much trepidation and affection we consider 

the present exultation toward ideals of a new, 

laborious, prosperous, and harmonious life. We 

send out our support to China, so distant from 

us geographically and yet so spiritually close… 

And we would like to think of peace, with the 

leaders of Continental China, aware as to how 

this supreme human and civil ideal be intimately 

congenial with the spirit of the Chinese 

People» 17. 

Horrible and foolish words, which cannot hide his unconditional 

pro-Communism. 

16 Vatican Statement, February 21, 1973. 

17 Address of January 6, 1967. 

227

228 

BUT PAUL VI DESECRATED FATIMA, TOO! 

Before this inhuman anguish, it would have been Paul VI’s duty 

to perform a Pilgrimage to Fatima, and pray together with the 

Catholic throng of traditional faith, to implore the Virgin Mary for 

the mercy of God, and, consequently, for peace in this riotous world. 

But that would not be the case. Paul VI did, to be sure, travel to 

Fatima, on May 13, 1967, fifty years after the celestial Apparitions, 

but he did not go there to see, but to be seen; not to hear the message 

of the Virgin Mary, but to take the stage; not to kneel down, 

but to dominate before an endless entreating crowd; not to receive 

celestial commands, but to impose his earthly schemes; not to implore 

the “peace” from the Holy Virgin, but to demand it of man, 

but to impose, right there, in the domain of the Blessed Virgin 

Mary, the “schemes” of the Masonic World of Manhattan; in a 

word, to stay faithful to himself. 

It was clear right from the outset. With a childish and impolite 

pretext, he humiliated the President of Portugal, Salazar (one of the 

most prestigious political Leaders of this century, and one of the 

major authors of the Christian civilization); first by not taking the 

time to meet him, at his office; then, by receiving him as any other 

Portuguese citizen, without cortege, without photographers, without 

any apparatus the President’s dignity would have required. And so, 

by humiliating the Head of State, Paul VI humiliated Portugal – the 

most faithful Country of Catholic faith – paying no consideration to 

the Nation or to Her leader. Even the progressive press underscored 

that act of contempt, flaunted, which Paul VI had toward that still 

deeply Catholic people. 

He then went on to celebrate, in the Portuguese language, a 

hasty and cold Mass, impossible to follow, so much so that even 

Laurentin defined it as “stammering”. It was noted, then, that his 

speeches made but brief allusion to the Apparitions of 1917, and, 

even these, were superficial and detached. 

Concerned for his political and ecumenical chimeras, Paul VI 

had organized a series of “audiences” that were to take up all of 

his time; particularly, an “ecumenical meeting” with the “representatives 

of the non-Catholic communities”. But the Lord humiliated 

him. Of all the invited, only two showed up, Presbyterians, 

with whom, he could only exchange a few meaningless words, as

they could not understand Paul VI’s speech in the French language, 

while so many good Catholics would have been more than willing 

to pray and speak with him. 

Moreover, having no wish to visit the places of the Apparitions, 

at Cova da Iria, in spite of its proximity, he gave everyone the impression 

he did not believe in them. But ever since his arrival at Fatima, 

he had not found the time to salute, first, Our Lady of Fatima, 

as he immediately climbed onto the platform, saluting the people. 

He had passed before the Virgin Mary without as much as raising 

his eyes toward her; just as, afterwards, he declined to recite 

the rosary with the crowd. Even the TV showed, and the newspapers 

noted, that Paul VI had not even recited a “Hail Mary”! 

Finally: the last of the seers, Sister Lucia, asked him, weeping, 

for a few personal moments together alone; but Paul VI denied her 

even that. His interpreter, Father Alùeyda, in an interview to the 

Vatican Radio, would recount: «Lucia expressed the wish to tell 

the Pope something in person, but the Pope replied, “See, this is 

not a good time. On the other hand, if you have something to tell 

me, tell our Bishop and he will be sure to pass it on to me. Have 

full confidence in him and obey our Bishop in everything”». 

At this point the interpreter cut it short, saying, «And the Pope 

blessed Sister Lucia as a father blesses a dear daughter whom, 

perhaps, he may never see again». 

Sure! Because there are even “graces” that will not be repeated. 

At this juncture, I cannot avoid recalling that, six days earlier, on 

May 7, Paul VI had found the time to meet with [Italian movie 

stars] Claudia Cardinale and Gina Lollobrigida, at St. Peter, with 

a completely different interest. And that ten days later, on May 17, 

Paul VI had listened, with great attention, to the two Jewish women 

Presidents of the covert organization of the “Temple of Understanding”. 

But it was evident that it could not be otherwise, for a “Montini” 

that had betrayed Pope Pius XII in order to deal with Moscow, 

and therefore, could not believe, even then, in the Apparitions of Fatima, 

in the Apparitions of a Virgin Mary that did not come to terms 

with Moscow, that is, unlike him, but rather urged the world to seek 

conversion so as not to fall into the claws of that satanic Communism, 

led by Freemasonry! 

229

And so the World, because of Paul VI’s failings, continued to 

roam the avenues of perdition, en route to punishment. 

His silence and his manifest contempt of Fatima would beget no 

other result than that of transforming into harsh realities the threats 

of new “punishments” on the part of God, of a world by now slipping, 

unchecked, into a rotting and bloody bog, and it would then be 

the “Third World War”, which Freemasonry will unleash again 

through Communism, persecutor and triumphant everywhere. 

And it would be an atomic war, with its unfathomable devastations, 

permitted by God on account of the iniquity that has by now 

reached the rim, and of the ongoing “Great Apostasy”. And so the 

peoples with Faith, shall also relinquish their life. 

But then, why did Paul VI travel to Fatima? Was it perhaps to 

substitute his Message for that of the “Queen of Peace”? This message 

he manifested in Manhattan, at the UN, by demanding “Peace” 

not of Heaven, but of Man’s heart, whom Paul VI entrusted it to? 

In fact, appearing at the window of his Vatican apartment, on the 

very night of his return from Fatima, he said: 

230 

«At Fatima, we have asked the Virgin Mary 

about the avenues leading to peace, and it was 

answered to us that peace will be achieved». 

Quite brazen! As if to say that the Virgin Mary had encouraged 

him to pursue his “Great Design” of leading all men to building 

peace not through “Prayer” and “Penance”, but through the 

doctrine of the “Populorum Progressio”, namely, “Progress and 

Peace”. 

But that would be tantamount to attributing to Heaven his “Message”, 

recited at Manhattan, that “Peace” is possible because men 

are good; nay, that “Peace” is the work of men, all men, fruit of 

their converging efforts under the world leadership of the Jewish- 

Masonic Organizations. 

It is no use attempting to explain his “Message”. It is sufficient 

to read again his “Prayer”, not to God but to man, with which he 

wrapped up his journey to Fatima: 

«Men, do endeavor to be worthy of the divine 

gift of peace! Men, be men (sic)!

Men, be good, be wise, be open to the consideration 

of the total good of the world! 

Men, be magnanimous! 

Men, get closer to one another again, with the 

idea of building a new world! 

Yes, the world of the true men, which will never 

be such without the sun of God on its horizon!». 

A delirious speech, which we do not approve of, for we believe 

that Our Lady of Fatima shall again be the Virgin Mary that will 

crush the head of the serpent-Satan. For we believe in her calls to 

“Prayer” and “Penance”. For we believe we must intensify the 

recitation of the “Rosary for Peace”. For we believe in the “Consecration 

of the World to the Immaculate Heart of the Virgin 

Mary”, which Peace depends upon, for God has entrusted it to her, 

in order that, at the end of this disastrous and satanic turn to the 

left, “Her Immaculate Heart” may triumph over the World 

turned Christian again. 

231

232 

COMMUNISM AND MASONRY 

– In 1848, Karl Schapper, Joseph Moll and Heinrich Bauer, the Illuminati 

who ran the “League of Righteous Men”, decided to change the 

name to “Communist League” of which Karl Marx became a member. 

They asked Marx to codify the program of Weishaupt, the founder of 

the “Order of the Illuminati of Bavaria” of which the “League of 

Righteous Men” was merely an offshoot. Thus, the “Communist Manifesto” 

appeared, through Marx who received substantial help from two 

“Illuminati” Clinton Roosevelt and Horace Greeley. 

The “Order of the Illuminati” is the visible root of the link between 

“Worldwide Communism” and “Worldwide Masonry”, while their 

deeper root lies in the common origin of the thought of the Rosicrucians! 

Communism’s, Marx conceived purpose is to create a completely centralized 

dictatorship and submissive to the authority of the state, 

encompassing the entire world; while the essential purpose of the Rosicrucians 

is the establishment of a dictatorial form of World Government, 

with the emphasis on material progress, as a first step chronologically 

both East and West. The two worlds have basically the same objective, 

apart from some variations. Their enemies, therefore, are common 

enemies: Man made in God’s image, thereby ensuring his freedom, 

the Roman Catholic Church, which maintains the “Decalogue” 

and “The Rights of Man” when these are considered as the counterpart 

of the “duties” that the creature has toward his Creator! 

– «The root for man is man himself ... The criticism of religious doctrine 

concludes that, for man, The Supreme Being is Man». 

– «We want to get rid of all that is supernatural, so we declared war 

once and for all on religion». (Karl Marx) 

– «All religious ideas are crazy! God is a monstrous corpse. Faith in 

God is a monstrous cowardice». (Lenin) 

– «No neutrality in the face of religion. Against the propagators of 

religious nonsense, the Communist Party can only continue the 

war». (Stalin)

233

Our Lady and Child, defaced by the godless fury of the Communists in Spain – Barcelona, 

October 1934. 

234

Above: The map, based on 

“Prisons and Concentration 

Camps of the Soviet 

Union”, draws the gulag 

archipelago in the USSR. 

The Soviet penal institutions 

known until the beginning of 

1980 (1976 camps, 273 

prisons and 85 psychiatric 

prisons) are shown, each 

with a point. The numbering 

identifies zones, regions and 

republics of the USSR. 

Left: Paul VI receives the 

President of the Communist 

Republic of Czechoslovakia, 

Janor Kadar, the persecutor 

of Card. Joseph Mindszenty. 

235

Above: On January 1, 1977: second 

meeting between Paul VI and the Mayor 

of Rome, Argan. A slow march on the 

path of “historic compromise” with 

Communism. 

Left: Paul VI receives the Communist 

President of Yugoslavia, Marshal Tito, 

at the Vatican. 

237

240 

«The mystery of the most Holy Eucharist 

which Christ, the High Priest instituted, 

and which He commands 

to be continually renewed in the Church 

by His ministers, 

is the culmination and center, 

as it were, of the Christian religion». 

(Pius XII, MD 66)

CHAPTER VIII 

HIS “ECUMENICAL MASS” 

The debate is still open as to whether Paul VI had the authority 

to change the Catholic “Mass” in a way that would make it ambiguous, 

equivocal and of a Protestant content. 

The fact is, Pius V’s “Bull”, “Quo Primum”, still stands with all 

its weight and authority. I shall stay, here, within the core of the issue. 

Namely: could Paul VI change the “texts” of the Mass? He 

certainly could, as a Pope, had disciplinary questions been at issue, 

but, because of its dogmatic nature, the faithful fulfillment of the 

Holy Sacrifice” of the Mass, in keeping with the Will of Jesus 

Christ and in line with the traditional teaching, multi-secular, 

given to us by the Church, Paul VI could not do it, having no 

“right” to “change” as much as a hair of the “Depositum Fidei”. 

Hence Paul VI was free to change some “prayers”, but he could 

not introduce anything into the Mass that might alter the Catholic 

doctrine, and, therefore, the traditional Catholic Faith. 

Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) had ruled, already: 

«The consecratory formula of the “Roman 

Canon” had been imposed to the Apostles by 

Christ directly, and handed down by the Apostles 

to their successors». 

241

And the Florentine Council (Session of the year 1442), in its 

“Decree for the Greeks and the Armenians”, had solemnly reiterated 

and confirmed the same dogmatic doctrine of Tradition, as witnessed 

by Innocent III. Thus the “historical fact”, incontrovertible, 

clearly demonstrates that 

242 

«The celebration of the Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice 

of the Mass, and, therefore, even the formulation 

of the “consecration”, preceded the 

appearance of all of the Scriptural texts of the 

New Testament by at least two decades». 

It is consequently censurable that, after the Church had been 

using for nearly two millennia, continuously (and without a single 

dispute), the formula of the pre-conciliar “Roman Canon”, it 

should be necessary to revise it and modify it, particularly the “formula 

of the Eucharistic Consecration, willed by Christ”… ever 

since the onset of the Apostolic preaching of the Gospel. 

Now, Paul VI, having abolished the Eucharistic consecratory 

formula of the “Roman Canon” (which, as Innocent III and the 

Florentine Council had taught, was instituted by Christ and had always 

been used by the Roman Catholic Church), he replaced it 

with his own formula (which, therefore, is no longer that instituted 

by Christ), even making it mandatory, as of November 30, 

1969, having introduced it in the “Missale Romanum Apostolic 

Constitution” of April 3, 1969. 

And yet, St. Pius V, St. Pius X, Pius XII (the Pope of the “Mediator 

Dei”), John XXIII and Paul VI, himself, up until November 

30, 1969, had consecrated the Blessed Eucharist with the bi-millennial 

formula of the “Roman Canon”, with assurance, with compassion, 

with faith, in the Latin language, with subdued voice, following 

Canon IX of Session XXIII of the Council of Trent. 

And thus Paul VI, with his reform of the Mass, disregarded 

the teaching of the Vatican I Council, which reads, verbatim: 

«Nor to the successors of Peter was promised 

the Holy Spirit in order that that, by means of 

His revelation, they would manifest a new doctrine, 

but on the contrary, in order that through

His assistance, they would holily keep and 

faithfully expound the Revelation, taught 

through the Apostles, namely, the “Deposit of 

the Faith.”» 1 (Pastor Aeternus July 8, 1870) 

Moreover, Paul VI disregarded also Pius IX’s teaching 

(against the “Declaratio Episcoporum Germaniae” of January- 

February 1875), which reads as follows: 

«… Finally, the opinion that the Pope, by virtue 

of his infallibility, be supreme sovereign, supposes 

a concept at all erroneous of the dogma of 

the Papal infallibility. As the (First) Vatican 

Council, with unambiguous and explicit words, 

has enunciated, and as it appears in its face 

from the nature of things, that (infallibility) is 

restricted to the prerogative of the Papal 

Supreme Magisterium: that coincides with the 

domain of the infallible Magisterium of the 

Church Herself, and it is bound to the doctrine 

contained in the Scriptures and Tradition, as 

well as to the (dogmatic) Definitions already 

pronounced by the ecclesiastical Magisterium… 

Hence, as regards the affaires of the government 

of the Pope, nothing has been changed 

in an absolute way» 2. 

In addition: Paul VI, having disregarded the two aforementioned 

“documents” of the Supreme Magisterium, went as far as 

tampering with the “Eucharistic Consecratory Formula”, established 

by Christ in person, insinuating, almost, to the entire 

Church, that that formula contained something that needed fixing, 

violating, in this manner, also Canon VI of the Council of Trent, 

which sanctioned: 

1 Denzinger, n. marg. 3070. 

2 Denzinger, n. marg. 3116. 

243

244 

«SI QUIS DIXERIT CANONEM MISSAE CON- 

TINERE ERRORES, IDEOQUE ABROGAN- 

DUM ESSE, ANATHEMA SIT». 

[If anyone will have said that the Canon of the 

Mass contains errors, and must therefore be abrogated, 

let him be anathema.] 

Now, having intentionally abolished that Canon’s consecratory 

formula, replacing it with another, confusing or misleading and multipurpose, 

in order to please the Protestants, should Paul VI be listed, 

too, under that “excommunication” of the Council of Trent? 

In any case, even Cardinal Ratzinger, in his autobiography, “My 

Life”, makes mention of the 

«… Tragic error was committed by Paul VI 

with the prohibition of the use of Pius V’s 

Missal and the approval of the “new” Missal, 

which would break away from the liturgical 

tradition of the Church» 3. 

And he pursued 4: 

«… I was astonished for the prohibition of the 

ancient Missal, since such a thing had never occurred 

in the entire history of liturgy. The impression 

was given that there was nothing to it. 

Pius V had established the previous Missal in 

1570, in adherence to the Council of Trent; and 

thus it was normal that, when four hundred 

years and a new Council had come to pass, a 

new Pope would publish a new missal. But the 

historical truth is quite another. Pius V had 

limited himself to re-elaborate the Roman 

Missal then in use, as it had always been the 

case in the living course of history. Like him, 

3 Joseph Ratzinger, “My Life”, p. 105-115. 

4 As above, p. 111-112.

several of his successors had re-elaborated that 

missal, without ever placing a missal in conflict 

with another. It was always a dynamic process 

of historical growth and purification in which 

however the continuity was never severed. A 

missal of Pius V, created by him, does not exist. 

There is only the re-elaboration he ordered, as 

a stage of a long process of historical growth. 

The new, after the Council of Trent, took on a 

different nature: the storm of the Protestant 

Reformation had taken place, above all, in the 

modality of the liturgical “reforms” (…) so 

much so that the boundaries between what was 

still Catholic, and what Catholic was no longer, 

were hard to delineate. In that confused situation, 

made possible by the lack of a unitary 

liturgical normative and by the liturgical pluralism 

inherited from the Middle Ages, the 

Pope decided that the “Roman Missal”, the 

liturgical text of the city of Rome, being positively 

Catholic, must be introduced wherever 

no reference to a liturgy that would not be at 

least two hundred years old could be made. 

Wherever such a liturgy was at hand, the previous 

liturgy could be maintained, given that its 

Catholic character could be deemed safe». 

And so, all St. Pius V did was to extend to the entire West the 

traditional Roman Mass, as a barrier against Protestantism. 

Paul VI, on the contrary, abolished the “Traditional Roman 

Rite” since his “pastoral” aims were not for the Catholics, as it 

should have been, but for the Protestants. And in that way, his 

“Novus Ordo” was but a “remarkable departure from the 

Catholic theology of the Holy Mass” (see Cardinal Ottaviani and 

Bacci in their “Brief Critical Review” 5. The confirmation of that 

5 In the “Brief Critical Review”, a study made by a group of capable theolo- 

245

came even from the “Osservatore Romano” (October 13, 1967), in 

which it was announced that “The liturgical reform has taken a 

remarkable step forward (sic) and has come closer to the liturgical 

forms of the Lutheran Church”. 

A liturgical turn, therefore, but one that has all the flavor of a betrayal 

of the Faith. While St. Pius V retained the traditional “Roman 

Rite”, “as surely Catholic”, Paul VI, on the contrary, abolished 

the “Traditional Roman Rite” precisely because its was 

Catholic, in order to bring about his “new Missal”, positively 

“protestantized”, as one can easily prove. 

The Catholic Faith, in fact, with respect to the Holy Mass, has 

always taught us that She is “the bloodless renewal of the Sacrifice 

of Calvary”, and that, after the “Consecration”, the bread and 

the wine are really changed into the Body and Blood of Our 

Lord Jesus Christ. 

On the other hand, “Protestantism” does not believe at all in 

the “renewal” of the sacrifice of Calvary, nor does it believe in 

the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist; and that is why in 

their churches, when they break the bread and drink the wine, they 

do it only to “commemorate” the Last Supper. They perform, 

that is, a mere “memorial”. 

There is, therefore, an essential difference between the Catholic 

conception and the Protestant one as to the “Eucharistic celebration”. 

That said, one may ask oneself: How is it that today, after 

Paul VI’s “reformation” of the Mass, the Protestants say they can 

accept the Catholic Mass, whereas, before, they would not accept at 

all that of Pius V? Is it perhaps that the Protestants have embraced 

the Catholic Faith? Or is it rather because Paul VI’s Mass has 

“embraced” Lutheran thinking? 

Let us hear from the Protestants themselves. 

Roger Mehl, Protestant theologian, in an article on “Le 

Monde” of September 10, 1970, wrote: 

gians, then submitted to Paul VI by the Cardinals Bacci and Ottaviani, it is said: 

«The “Nuovo Ordo Missae”, if the new elements are considered... does away 

in a remarkable manner, both in the whole and in the details, from the 

Catholic theology of the Holy Mass». 

246

«If the decisive evolution of the Eucharistic 

Liturgy in substitution of the (traditional) 

Canon of the Mass, the removal of the idea that 

the Mass is a Sacrifice, and the possibility of receiving 

Communion under the two species, are 

taken into account, then there is no longer any 

justification, for the reformed Church, to bar 

their members from attending the Eucharist in 

a Catholic Church». 

More incisive it is the statement of Doctor J. Moorman, Protestant 

bishop of Ripon, and Anglican “observer” at the Vatican II, 

whom, not without a hint of irony, wrote: 

«Reading the scheme on Liturgy and listening 

to the debate thereof, I could not help but think 

that, if the Church of Rome continued to improve 

the Missal and the Breviary for a long 

enough while yet, one day, she would come up 

with the “Book of Common Prayer”» 6. 

Another, a British Anglican bishop adopting throughout his diocese 

the new Catholic rite, had this to say: 

«This new rite is perfectly in keeping with our 

Protestant ideas». 

The French Catholic writer Louis Salleron, in a work, asked the 

fathers of Taizé: «Why are you saying that today you can adopt 

the new rite and not the ancient one?». 

Fratel Roger Schutz, superior of the community of Taizé, 

6 Thomas Cranmer was the Anglican reformer bishop who, under Henry VIII, 

among his works, also wrote, in 1549, the “Book of Common Prayer”. He challenged, 

above all, the Catholic doctrine of the “Transubstantiation”, of the “Real 

Presence”, of the “Sacrifice” of the Altar, reducing the Mass, in concurrence 

with Luther, into a mere historical “commemoration”. 

247

eplied, because “the notion of sacrifice is nowhere clearly affirmed” 

7. 

Even the Superior Consistory of the (Protestant) Church of 

the Denomination of Augsburg of Alsace and Lorena, after the 

assembly of Strasbourg of December 8, 1973, stated: 

248 

«We estimate that, in the present circumstances, 

the loyalty to the Gospel and to our 

Tradition no longer affords us to oppose the 

participation of the faithful of our Church to a 

Catholic Eucharistic celebration... The present 

forms of the Eucharistic celebration in the 

Catholic Church having been the reason of the 

present theological convergences, many obstacles 

that could have kept a Protestant from participating 

in Her Eucharistic celebration, seem 

on their way to extinction. It should be possible, 

today, for a Protestant, to recognize, in the Eucharistic 

celebration, the Supper instituted by 

the Lord» 8. 

Then, the Consistory pointed out: 

«We are keen on the utilization of new Eucharistic 

prayers in which we find ourselves 

(such as those prayers introduced by Paul VI), 

and which have the advantage of shading off 

the theology of the sacrifice, which we normally 

attribute to Catholicism. These prayers invite 

us to re-trace an evangelical theology of the 

sacrifice…» 9. 

That language means that even our theology on Paul VI’s Mass 

7 “World Trends”, Australia, June 1973, n. 34, p. 3. 

8 “Dernières Nouvelles d’Alsace”, December 14, 1973, n. 289. 

9 Idem.

has become a theology conformant to the Protestant doctrine. These 

are affirmations that call for reflection. 

Sure, our faithful do not perceive that “Protestant flavor” in 

Paul VI’s “new Mass”, wherein the “texts” have equivocal expressions, 

which give way to various interpretations, and wherein 

“suppressions” and “omissions” have been made of certain fundamental 

aspects of the dogma, but there are reasons to believe, 

nonetheless, that those suppressions and omissions have been certainly 

voluntary and calculated by the editors of the texts. 

In fact, not by chance did Paul VI include in the “Consilium”, 

entrusted with the liturgical reform, six Protestant members, in 

representation of the “World Council of the Churches”, namely, 

the Church of England, the Lutheran Church and the Protestant 

Community of Taizé 10. 

And that justifies the grave affirmation of Cardinals Ottaviani 

and Bacci, whom, in their “Brief Critical Review of the Novus 

Ordo Missae”, drafted in collaboration with a group of selected 

theologians, declared that the “New Mass” “departs in a remarkable 

manner, both in the whole and in details, from the Catholic 

theology of the Holy Mass”. 

We single out, therefore, here, some material parts of Paul VI’s 

Mass, containing grave errors. Let us begin with the definition of 

“Mass”, such as it was presented in paragraph 7, at the outset of 

Chapter 2 of the “Novus Ordo”: “De Structura Missae”: 

«Cena dominica, sive Missa, est sacra synaxis 

seu congregatio populi Dei in unum convenientis, 

sacerdote praeside, ad memoriale Domini 

celebrandum. Quare de sanctae ecclesiae locali 

congregatione eminenter valet promissio 

Christi: “Ubi sunt duo vel tres congregati in 

10 Here are the names of those six Protestant members that collaborated in the 

drafting of the “Novus Ordo Missae”: Georges, Jasper, Sephard, Konnet, Smith 

and Thurian. Among these, two Anglicans (one Briton, one American), a member 

of the “Lutheran World Council”, another, member of the “World Council 

of the Churches”, and two more Lutheran of Taizé. 

249

250 

nomine meo, ibi sum in medio eorum” 11» 12. 

[The Lord’s Supper or Mass is the sacred assembly 

or congregation of the people of God gathering 

together, with a priest presiding, in order to 

celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason 

Christ’s promise applies supremely to such a local 

gathering together of the Church: “Where two or 

three come together in my name, there am I in 

their midst]. 

As one can see, the definition of “Mass” is limited to a “supper” 

which is then continuously repeated 13. A “supper”, that is, 

characterized by the assembly, chaired by a cleric, in which a 

simple “memorial” of the Lord is performed, recalling what He 

did on Holy Thursday. 

Now, all this does not imply either the “Real Presence”, or 

the “reality of the Sacrifice”, or the “sacramentality” of the consecrating 

priest, or the “intrinsic value” of the Eucharistic sacrifice, 

independently of the presence of the assembly. In a nutshell, 

it does not imply any of the essential dogmatic values of the Mass, 

which constitute, therefore, her true definition. 

Hence the voluntary omission is tantamount to their “supersedence”, 

and, at least in practice, to their denial 14. 

The second part, then, of that definition, namely that the 

Mass realizes “eminently” the promise of Christ, “There, where 

two or three… I am in their midst”, creates an ambiguity, since 

that “promise of Christ” regards only, formally, a spiritual presence 

of Christ, by virtue of His Grace, but it does not regard at 

11 Matthew 18, 20. 

12 Translation: “The Sunday supper, or Mass, is the holy synapse (Religious Assembly) 

or gathering of the people of God, under the presidency of the priest, to 

celebrate the memorial of the Lord. That is why the promise of Christ carries a 

value, in an eminent way, to the assembly: “When two or three are gathered in my 

name, there am I in midst of them” (Matthew 18, 20)”. 

13 “Novus Ordo Missae”, n. 8, 48, 55d, 56. 

14 “Brief Critical Review”, p. 5. It goes without saying that even if one single 

dogma were to be negated, there would collapse, ipso facto, all the dogmas, since

all the “Real Presence”, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, such as 

it is found, instead, in the Holy Eucharist. Thus binding that 

“promise” of Christ’s to the Mass would signify that the Mass 

realizes only a “spiritual presence” of Christ, and not the real 

and sacramental one. 

It would be enough to say that the definition of Mass of Paul 

VI’s “Novus Ordo” was “ heretical”. (And Paul VI, then?). However, 

after reading that “Brief Critical Review” of the two cardinals, 

he had that “paragraph 7” amended 15, if only in part, as the 

“text of the Mass” has remained as it was. Not a word has been 

changed. 

With that “canny” reparation, the “errors” of that paragraph 

would seem to have been fixed. Would seem. Not so! The “Mass” 

is a “supper”, just as before; the “sacrifice” is but a “memorial”, 

just as before; the “presence of Christ in the two species” is qualitatively 

equal to His presence in the assembly, in the priest and 

in the Scriptures. The laity will not perceive the subtle distinction 

of the “Sacrifice of the altar”, called, now, “enduring”, but that 

was the “mens” [mind] of the editors, as Rahner explained in his 

comment to the “Sacrosanctum Concilium” art. 47: 

«Art. 47 contains – it was already in the Council 

– a theological description of the Eucharist. 

Two elements are worthy of attention: it is said 

to let “endure” the sacrifice of Christ, whereas 

the expressions “REPRAESENTATIO” (Council 

of Trent) and “RENOVATIO” (more recent 

Papal texts) have been deliberately left out. The 

Eucharistic celebration is characterized by a 

word, taken from the recent Protestant discus- 

the very principle of the infallibility of the supreme solemn Hierarchical Magisterium, 

whether it be Papal or conciliar, would collapse. 

15 The new text sounds as follows: «In the Mass, or “Cena Dominica”, the people 

of God are gathered to celebrate, under the presidency of the priest, acting 

“in persona Cristi”, the memorial or Eucharistic Sacrifice. Of this local 

assembly stands, in an eminent way, the promise of Christ: “When two or 

three are gathered in my name, there am I in midst of them”». 

251

252 

sion, namely, “memorial of the death and resurrection 

of Jesus”». 

Now, is that not a departure from the bloodless renewal of the 

Sacrifice of the Calvary? In fact, according to this “new definition”, 

the sacrifice of Christ would have taken place only once and 

for all, and would be enduring in its effect. But that is the doctrine 

of Luther! If the “Sacrifice” is a mere “memorial”, in which the 

effect of the only sacrifice endures, then Christ is only present 

spiritually; and that diminishes Him, even though the expression 

“in persona Christi” has been introduced, and the “Real Presence” 

is only symbolized in the two species. 

Proof of this can be had also in the declarations of the German 

theologians, such as Lângerlin, collaborator of J. A. Jungmann, and 

Johannes Wagner, whom, speaking in fact of the “new version” of 

paragraph (7), say: 

«In spite of the new version, granted, in 1970, 

to the militant reactionaries (that would be Cardinals 

Ottaviani and Bacci… and us), and not disastrous 

nonetheless (!!), thanks to the ability of 

the editors, the new theology of the Mass also 

avoids the cul-de-sac of the post-Tridentine theories 

of Sacrifice, and corresponds for all time 

to certain inter-confessional documents of recent 

years» 16. 

That would mean that even the current cult is still crippled. 

And so, “quid dicendum” of Paul VI? Are we not, perhaps, 

confronted with a “fact” that is unprecedented throughout the history 

of the Roman Pontificate? 

It is appropriate, therefore, to recall once more that one must 

not confuse the jurisdictional prerogatives of the Supreme Apostolic 

Authority, which include, to be sure, the legislative freedom 

of every Pontiff, whereas others are marked by impassable limits, 

16 From the book: “Tradition and Progress”, published at Graz.

to any Pontiff, until the end of time. Namely, the Pope has no constraints 

when acting in the area of “discipline”, so long as his action 

did not involve the substance and security from any contamination 

of error of any “De Fide” dogma, as this is “ex sese irreformabile” 

17. 

«Neque enim FIDEI DOCTRINA, quam Deus 

revelavit... velut “Philosophicum Inventum”, 

proposita est humanis ingentis perficienda (!)... 

sed tamquam DIVINUM DEPOSITUM 

CHRISTI... Sponsae tradita, fideliter custodienda 

et infallibiliter declaranda...» 18. 

[For the doctrine of Faith, which God revealed, 

has not been handed down as a philosophical invention, 

to the human mind to be perfected but has 

been entrusted as a Divine Deposit to the Spouse 

of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly 

interpreted… – Denz. 1800] 

It is thus evident that St. Pius V knew what he was saying when 

he mapped out a limit, impassable “in perpetuo”, even by all of 

his successors. His “QUO PRIMUM” Constitution did not have for 

an object a disciplinary issue, subject to a Pastoral Government, 

which might even be changed in accordance with the times, but his 

Constitution had for an object a definitive Codification of that 

which had been, ever since Apostolic Times, the dogmatic substance, 

immune from doctrinal errors, of the Mass; as EU- 

CHARISTIC SACRIFICE (and not “Supper”!) and as CELEBRA- 

TION, which is not at all, by its own nature, “COLLECTIVE” (as 

provided for, instead, in art. 14 of the “INSTITUTIO GENER- 

ALIS”, after the Vatican II), but only MINISTERIAL CELEBRA- 

TION OF SACRAMENTAL PRIESTHOOD! 

17 Vatican I Council, Session IV, “De Romani Ponteficis Infallibili Magisterio”, 

Dogmatic definition, Denz. n. marg. 1839; marg. est. 3074. 

18 Vatican I Council, Session III, “De Fide Catholica” Constitution - Denz. n. 

marg. est. 3020; marg. int. 1800. 

253

In fact, that “participation of the people in the rite” has never 

meant (in twenty centuries of doctrine of the Church) a “Right 

of the People” to actively participate in the Mass (as the rite itself 

would be invalid), but only “concession”, on the part of the 

teaching Church, to participate, through dialogue, to some portions 

and prayers, of merely ceremonial value, but not to those 

bearing an “official” and “Consecratory” value, sole prerogative 

of the priest, validly consecrated, “conditio sine qua non” to the 

“Sacrificii Eucharistici” (Eucharistic Sacrifice)... 

For these “dogmatic reasons”, Pope St. Pius V, in his “QUO 

PRIMUM” Constitution, concludes with these solemn words: 

254 

«Nulli ergo, omnino “hominum” (and thus all, 

including his successors) liceat hanc paginam 

Nostrae PERMISSIONIS, STATUTIS, ORDINA- 

TIONIS, MANDATI, PRAECEPTI, DECRETI et 

INHIBITIONIS... INFRINGERE... vel Ei... ausu 

temerario... contraire (!)... Si quis autem Hoc Attentare 

Praesumpserit... INDIGNATIONEM OM- 

NIPOTENTIS DEI ac Beatorum PETRI et PAULI, 

Apostolorum Eius... SE NOVERIT INCURSU- 

RUM...». 

[Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to 

infringe or rashly contravene this notice of our 

permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, 

grant, indult, declaration, will, decree and 

prohibition. Should any person venture to do so, 

let him understand that he will incur the wrath of 

Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter 

and Paul.] 

Did Paul VI, perhaps, ignore all that? 

It is opportune, therefore, that I also underscore a fundamental 

point of the Mass, perhaps the most injured in that Mass of Paul 

VI’s: the Essence of the Sacrifice. 

a) The “Real Presence” 

While in the “Suscipe” of the Mass of St. Pius V the “aim” of 

the offering was explicitated, here, in Paul VI’s new Mass no men-

tion is made of it. Hence one can say that the change in the formulation 

reveals a doctrinal change. In other words: the non-explicitation 

of the Sacrifice is tantamount to the suppression of the 

central role of the “Real Presence”. In fact, that “Real and permanent 

Presence” of Christ, in Body, Soul and Divinity, is never 

alluded to. The very word “transubstantiation” is completely 

ignored. 

b) The “Consecratory Formulas” 

The ancient formula of the Consecration was not a “narrative” 

one – as it is, instead, that of the “new Mass” – but it was a 

sacramental formula in the strict sense of the word. On the contrary, 

the “new consecratory formulas” are uttered by the priest as 

if they were an “historical narration”, not as expressing a categorical 

and affirmative judgment, offered by He in whose Person He is 

acting: “Hoc est Corpus meum”; and not: “Hoc est Corpus 

Christi”. Hence the words of the Consecration, such as are introduced 

into the context of the “Novus Ordo”, may be valid only by 

virtue of the minister’s intention, but may also be invalid, since they 

are no longer valid “ex vi verborum”, and that is, by virtue of the 

“modus significandi” they had until yesterday, in Paul VI’s Mass. 

In addition, Paul VI gave the language of the Universal Church 19 

(against the will expressed by the Vatican II itself) the final blow, 

with the “Sacrosantum Concilium” “Apostolic Constitution”, 

which states: “in tot varietate linguarum una (?) eademque cunctorum 

praecatio… quo vis ture fragrantior ascendat”. [in such 

a variety of tongues one and the same prayer of all… may rise 

more fragrant than incense]. So he did the same with “Gregorian 

Chant”, even though Vatican II had it acknowledged as being 

“liturgiae romanae proprium” 20, (proper to the Roman Liturgy) 

ordering that “principem locum obtineat.” 21 [it holds first place]. 

19 “Sacrosantum Concilium” Constitutions, art. 36, art. 54. 

20 Sacr. Conc. n. 116. “Acta Apostolicae Sedis”, September 9, 1968, p. 536 and 

subsequent. 

21 Art. 36: «Linguae latinae usus in ritibus latinis servetur» (The use of the Latin 

255

And so the “new rite”, pluralistic and experimental, would be 

bound to times and places; but in that way, not only the “unity of 

cult” has been severed, but also the “unity of Faith”. 

At this juncture, we may positively conclude that a real difference 

exists between the “new rite” and the “ancient” one, a real 

substantial difference. In fact, there cannot be but an accidental 

difference if the Protestants, today, are ready to participate in the 

“new rite” while they still steer clear of the old one, which truly illuminates 

the aim of the “Sacrifice”, Propitiatory, Expiatory, Eucharistic 

and Latreutic, whereas, in such a clear manner, it no 

longer exists in the “new rite”, in which even the Offertory has 

been lost. Just as Luther did, when along with the Offertory, he 

suppressed the Elevation, eliminating, in this way, any notion of 

“Sacrifice”. 

Even the “modifications” of the Consecration brought about 

in the “Novus Ordo”, are similar to those introduced by Luther. 

The essential words of the Consecration, in fact, are no longer merely 

the words of the form that was previously in use: “Hoc est Corpus 

meum”, and: “Hic est calix Sanguinis mei”, but in the “New 

language be retained in the Latin rites). 

Art. 54: «Provideatur... ut christifideles etiam lingua latina partes Ordinarii 

Missae quae ad ipsos spectant possint simul dicere vel cantare». (One must 

ensure... that the faithful know how to recite and chant, also in the Latin language, 

the ordinary parts of the Mass pertaining to them). 

In the “Costitutio de Sacra Liturgia”, at Chapter VI, dedicated to the Chanting 

of the “Sacred Music”, it is said: «The Church acknowledges the Gregorian 

Chant as the chant proper to the Roman Liturgy, thus claiming for it a central 

place in the liturgical acts...». 

In the “Holy Congregation for the Rites” “Acta Apostolicae Sedis” (of September 

9, 1968, p. 536 and subsequent), it is said: «In quavis Basilica, pro opportunitate, 

diebus praesertium festivis, una alteravae missa, sive lecta sive in 

cantu, lingua latina celebrantur. In eiusmodi missis cantatis, gregorianae melodiae 

vel sacra poliphonia peculiari cura et studio proferantur». (In all of the 

Basilicas, as opportunities allow, especially on holidays, one or more masses, read 

or chanted, are to be celebrated in the Latin language. In such masses, when 

chanted, Gregorian tunes, or holy poliphony, are to be performed with particular 

care and love). Etc. 

256

Mass” of Paul VI, the essential words begin with: “He took the 

bread…” until after the Consecration of the wine: “Hoc facite in 

meam commemorationem”; just as Luther did! And that because 

the “narration” of the Supper has to be read, which is, in point of 

fact, but “a narration, and not a sacrificial action, hence not a 

Sacrifice, but a mere “memorial”. 

Now, why in the world did Paul VI let Luther be copied so submissively? 

The only explanation one might venture, I believe, is 

that of ecumenism, that is, toward a more resolute rapprochement 

with the Protestants. And with that in mind, Paul VI invited the 

Protestants to be part of the “Commission for the Liturgical Reform”. 

But how was it possible that some Protestants could be invited 

– who do not share our same Faith – to participate in a 

Commission for the “Reformation of the Catholic Mass”? Was it 

that Paul VI, perhaps, with his obsession for “universal brotherhood”, 

for the sake of unity at any costs, had wanted, with that 

“Mass of His”, cause the “frontiers” separating the Catholics from 

the Protestants to crumble to the ground? If that was the case, then 

his was a capital error, nay, a blatant betrayal of the Catholic 

Faith. The true Christian unity, in fact, is realized only in the “integral 

truth”, in the perfect faithfulness to the doctrine of Jesus 

Christ, such as “Peter” transmitted to all the successive “Vicars of 

Christ”. To do away from that, is a betrayal. Period! 

In fact, the “fruits” derived from Paul VI’s “new Mass” stand 

as an eloquent proof of that betrayal. I would never come to lay 

down my pen, were I to document the countless lists of scandals 

and sacrileges, of “black masses”, of obscenities, perpetrated after 

Vatican II, precisely on account of the “new liturgy”. 

Naturally, not all of the disorders can be ascribed directly to Paul 

VI. They are, however, the “fruits” of his “liturgical revolution”, 

and of his inexplicable “tolerance” toward so many ecclesiastics 

that profaned the churches, turning them into dancing halls, theaters, 

concert halls, social and Communist convention halls, without ever 

intervening with a punishment, without ever requiring the “re-consecration” 

of the profaned churches. The apathy, the scandalous indifference 

of so great a portion of the religious Hierarchy before the 

profaned Eucharist (cabaret music, double entendre chants, or dull, 

indecent dances, etc.) cannot be said to be a token of faith in the 

“Holy Sacrifice of the Mass”, in the “Real Presence”, in the 

257

Greatness of God in the Eucharist. Nor having relegated the 

Blessed Sacrament into a corner of the church, almost hidden from 

the people; and the disappearance of the Ostensory, and the suppression, 

nearly everywhere, of the Holy Hour, of the “Forty 

Hours”, of the processions of the “Corpus Domini”; and the Communion 

received standing; and the abolition of the genuflection’s 

before the Blessed Sacrament, and so forth and so on. They have all 

been innovations that have diminished the Faith in the Eucharist, 

and, consequently, the esteem and love to the Eucharistic Jesus, 

among both the clerics and the faithful. 

And what were the reasons for doing that? Could anyone claim 

it was all “unintentional”? 

In any case, Paul VI’s presentation of the traditional doctrine on 

the Eucharist in his encyclical “Mysterium Fidei” certainly does not 

play in his defense for all that he has done, favored and tolerated. 

Nor will the citation of the “Conciliar Constitution on the Liturgy” 

for many of his directives paved the way to capriciousness and confusion. 

As these “facts” demonstrate: 

– On September 21, 1966, Paul VI authorized Miss Barbarina 

Olson, a Presbyterian (Protestant), to receive the Communion, 

during her wedding Mass, in a Catholic church, without requiring 

the abjuration of her previous “errors”, nor confession, nor 

any form of profession of Faith 22. 

And so, after that scandalous “Papal permission”, there 

presently followed not a few other “inter-communions”. The most 

notorious are those of the “Assembly of Medellin”, that of Uppsala, 

at the “Ecumenical Council of the Churches”; that of Vaugirard 

(Paris); an inter-communion, the latter, Paul VI would then 

disapprove of, if only for the “form” 23. In fact, in July of 1972, in 

an official Decree promulgated with Paul VI’s approval, Cardinal 

Willebrands announced that, as of that moment, the “inter-communions” 

were left to the judgment of the Bishop. This meant the 

Bishops could authorize “Protestants” to take communion during 

22 “La Croix” of December 3, 1966 - D. C. January 1967, n. 1485, p. 96. 

23 D. C., March 2, 1969, N. 1535, p. 214. 

258

the Mass of the Catholics, and, inversely, that the Catholics could 

participate in the Protestant celebrations. Since then, however, it 

was doubtful whether Paul VI still believed in the “Real Presence”, 

and, consequently, in the necessary “conditions” to receive 

Christ in the Eucharist; for the reason that, had he really believed 

in it, he would not have granted those “permissions” to the Protestants 

to receive the Eucharist, for the very reason that they do 

not believe in it at all. 

– On March 23, 1966, Paul VI received Dr. Michael Ramsey, 

head of Anglicanism, a Protestant religion. Now, the Catholic 

Church, up until Paul VI, had never recognized the validity of the 

“priestly Ordinations” of that religious sect. Leo XIII, in fact, in 

his Bull “Apostolicae Curae”, declared it “irrevocable” (“perpetuo 

ratam, firmam, irrevocabilem”) and taught that the “Ordinations 

conferred according to the Anglican rite are absolutely 

ineffective and entirely void”. 

And yet Paul VI, on that March 23, not only considerately received 

Doctor Ramsey, but went as far as putting a pastoral ring on 

his finger – symbol of jurisdiction, that is – and then begged him to 

bless the crowd gathered at St. Paul Outside the Wall. [Important 

Basilica in Rome’s St. Paul district] 

Now, that was a gesture that signaled a clear departure from the 

thought of Leo XIII and of the other Popes; and it was like an official 

approval of the Anglican ministries. It is proven by the fact that, 

shortly after, the Anglicans celebrated the Eucharist in the Vatican. 

In addition, the Episcopalian Deans of the United States and Canada, 

came to Rome for the Holy Year and celebrated the Eucharist in 

the Chapel of the Ethiopian College (on Vatican City’s territory). It 

was perhaps the first Eucharistic celebration of a Church that had 

come out of the Protestant Reformation, to take place in the Vatican. 

The group was composed of 75 people, led by the Dean of Washington’s 

Episcopalian Cathedral, the most Reverend Francis B. 

Sayre, and was accompanied by the Catholic archbishop of Washington, 

Monsignor William Wakefield Baum. Paul VI greeted them 

warmly during the general audience of Wednesday, April 23 24. 

24 S. C. June 15, 1975. To be noted: in that same period, the Vatican tried Mon- 

259

260 

*** 

Isn’t all that very grave? 

The Reverend Father Vinson, after his book: “The New Mass 

and the Christian Conscience”, published another brochure under 

the title: “Messe de l’Antéchrist”; a title suggested to him – writes 

he – by a text of St. Alphonse Maria Liguori: “L’Antéchrist (…) 

tâchera d’abolir et abolira réellement la Saint Sacrifice de l’autel, 

en punition des péchés des hommes”! (“ The Antichrist (…) 

will try to abolish it, and actually abolish the Holy Sacrifice of the 

altar, as punishment for the sins of men”!) 

Now, if we read again what Monsignor Annibale Bugnini, one of 

the inspirers and authors of that “Novus Ordo Missae”, wrote: 

«It is about a fundamental change, I would say, 

an almost total alteration, in certain points, an 

authentic creation»… 

and if we read again the “Letter to Paul VI” accompanying the 

“Brief Critical Review of the ‘Novus Ordo Missae’”, wherein it 

is said that these changes in the Mass leads one to believe «…That 

truths, always believed by the Christian people, can mutate or 

remain silent without infidelity to the Sacred Deposit of the Doctrine 

of the Catholic Faith which is bound to for all times», one 

would cease doubting that the “Novus Ordo Missae” 

«… represents, both in its whole and in details, 

a remarkable departure from the Catholic theology 

of the Holy Mass, such as it was formulated 

in Session XXII of the Council of Trent, 

which, by fixing definitively the “Canons” of 

the rite, erected an impassable barrier against 

signor Lefèbvre in order to suppress his Seminary and strip his “Brotherhood” 

even of the “right to existence”. Subsequently, not only was Monsignor Lefèbvre 

barred from celebrating the Holy Mass on Vatican territory, but Paul VI denied 

him the right to celebrate with him.

any heresy that would affect the integrity of the 

Mystery» 25… 

and one would convince oneself that the liturgical changes, operated 

in the “Novus Ordo Missae”, are neither light nor small nor 

simple, but that they are a “…very serious fracture”, since “… 

what HAS ENDURED through these volumes of changes, holds 

only a diverse minor place, although it is still there ” 26… 

In fact – we repeat – the “Novus Ordo Missae” does not manifest 

at all, in a clear manner, the faith in the “Real Presence” of 

Our Lord Jesus Christ; but it confuses, rather, the “Real Presence” 

of Christ in the Eucharist with His “spiritual presence” 

among us. In addition, it facilitates the confusion upon the definite 

difference between “Hierarchical Priesthood” and “common 

priesthood of the faithful”, such as the Protestants regard as desirable. 

Besides, it favors the Protestant heresy, which affirms that 

“the faith of the people and not the words of the Priest render 

Christ present in the Eucharist”. And the introduction of the 

Lutheran “prayer of the faithful”, too, shows well the error of the 

Protestants, which holds that every faithful is a priest. 

And again: that having rendered collective the “Confiteor” 

(which the Priest, in the Traditional Mass, recited by himself) was a 

resumption of Luther’s error, when he refused to accept the traditional 

teaching of the Catholic Church, according to which the Priest 

is judge, witness and intercessor near to God. 

Graver yet was that having reduced the Offertory into a mere 

preparation of the gifts, along the lines of Luther, whom eliminated 

it altogether, precisely for the reason that the Offertory 

expressed, in an undisputable manner, the sacrificial and propitiatory 

character of the Holy Mass. And that is one of the main 

reasons the Protestants can now celebrate their “supper” using the 

text of the “Novus Ordo Missae”, without renouncing their beliefs. 

Max Thurian, a Taizé Protestant, also affirmed it, saying that one 

of the fruits of the “Novus Ordo Missae” is that the non-Catholic 

25 “Brief Critical Review”. 

26 Idem. 

261

communities will be able to celebrate the supper with the same 

prayers of the Catholic Church. It is theologically possible” 27. 

And so Monsignor Dweyer, Archbishop of Birmingham and 

spokesman of the Episcopal Synod, could thus rightly say: «The 

liturgical reform is the key of the revision. Let us not fool ourselves: 

it is from here, the revolution starts». 

Paul VI, therefore, with his “New Mass” imposed the “errors” 

already condemned by the Council of Trent (dogmatic and 

pastoral), and stood against Pius VI, who condemned those very 

“errors” of the Synod of Pistoia against the Jansenists, and 

against Pius XII who condemned, for example, in his Encyclical 

“Mediator Dei”, the dinner-table-shaped altar… 

And so with his “liturgical revolution”, Paul VI realized the 

Judaic-Masonic aspirations of transforming the Catholic 

Church into a “NEW ECUMENICAL CHURCH” that would 

embrace any ideology, any religion, bundling together truths 

and errors. In that sense, symptomatic is Dom Duschak’s statement, 

made on November 5, 1962: «My idea would be to introduce 

an ecumenical mass…»; and asked whether such a proposal 

came from those of his diocese, he replied: «No, I think, rather, 

that they would oppose it, as would numerous Bishops; but were 

it possible to put it into practice, I think in the end they would 

come to accept it» 28. 

In any case, that giving more value to the altar than to the 

Tabernacle marked «… an irreparable dichotomy between the 

presence of the Eternal Supreme Priest, in the celebrant, and that of 

the Presence sacramentally realized. Today, in fact, it is recommended 

that the Blessed be kept in a secluded place, wherein the 

private devotion of the faithful might be expressed, as if it were a 

relic, hence, upon entering the church, one’s eyes would no longer 

be fastened onto the Tabernacle, but on an empty and bare dinnertable» 

29. 

27 “La Croix” of May 30, 1969. 

28 Ralph M. Wiltgen, “Le Rhine se jette dans le Tibre”, pp. 37-38. 

29 Idem. 

262

But the great and holy Pius XII had written, «To separate the 

Tabernacle from the altar is tantamount to separating two 

things that, by force of their nature, must remain a whole» 30. 

And so, in conclusion, we can say that the “Novus Ordo Missae” 

is no longer a “vertical” cult, going from man to God, but it 

has become a “horizontal” cult, between man and man. The “New 

Church” of Paul VI, that is, has become, as we have already 

demonstrated, the “religion of man”, to the detriment of God’s 

glory. 

I also wish to note, here, that in the “libera nos” of the “Novus 

Ordo Missae” not one mention is made of the Blessed Virgin 

Mary and of the Saints. Her and their intercession, therefore, is no 

longer invoked, not even in times of peril” 31. 

And I would also have you note that in none of the three new 

“Eucharistic Prayers” «… is there the tiniest hint as to the state 

of suffering of the departed, and in none is there the possibility 

of a special “memento”; which depletes the faith in the propitiatory 

and redemptive nature of the Sacrifice» 32. 

At this juncture, we also wish to stress that Paul VI’s “Novus 

Ordo Missae” is not even faithful to the directives of the Council, 

but that, rather, it is in plain contradiction with it, since the 

texts and rites, according to the Council, had to be arranged “in 

such a way that would allow the holy realities signified by them 

to be expressed more clearly”, that is, the texts and rites were to 

express more clearly the holy which they signified 33. 

On the contrary, the “Novus Ordo Missae” represents a collection 

of changes, of deformations, of departures, of simplistic expedients, 

naïve and harmful or altogether senseless. It ceases to utter 

– or misreads– numerous truths of the Catholic Faith. 

It will suffice to mention, here, the principal titles of the points 

of departure and non-observance of the principles set out by 

30 Pius XII: “Allocution at the International Congress on Liturgy”, Assisi - 

Rome September 18-23, 1956 - also “Mediator Dei”, I, 5, p. 25, note 28. 

31 Idem. 

32 Idem. 

33 “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, n. 21. 

263

Vatican II itself: 

34 Canon Law Code, Canons 22 and 30. 

35 Papal Bull: “Quo Primum Tempore”. 

264 

– a “new definition” of the sacrifice of the Mass; 

– a suppression of the Latreutic element; 

– an insufficiency of “prayers of offering”; 

– the suppression of the Trinitarian formulas; 

– the elimination of important prayers, both of the celebrant 

and of the faithful; 

– the diminishing of Angels and Saints; 

– the grave dogmatic shortfall of the new Canons; 

– the weakened position of the celebrant; 

– the mutation of sacred ornamentations within the 

churches and of the religious expression of the faithful; 

– the free spaces for the autonomous “creativity” of the celebrant; 

– etc... 

*** 

It is impossible, therefore, to cite as evidence that the form impressed 

upon the “Ordo Missae” had been based upon the indications 

of the Vatican II. It is also demonstrated by the “fact” that the 

Bishops, after attending that “normative Mass” presented by 

Paul VI, rejected it. In fact, it failed to reach the majority of two 

third of the Conciliar Fathers. That “new Mass” is thus entirely 

Paul VI’s doing. Behind the “Novus Ordo” stands Paul VI solely 

with his authority. 

It must be said, in addition, that the “Traditional Mass”, said 

of St. Pius V, was never legally abrogated, and it remains, to this 

day, a true rite of the Catholic Church, through which the faithful 

can fulfill their holiday precept 34because Pius V had granted a 

perpetual indult (which was never abrogated), valid “for all time” 

to celebrate the Traditional Mass, freely, legally, without any 

scruples and without incurring any punishments, conviction or 

censure 35.

On the other hand, Paul VI himself, in promulgating his “Novus 

Ordo Missae”, never had any intention of binding it by Papal infallibility, 

as he himself stated in his address of November 19, 1969: 

«… the rite and related record are not per se a 

dogmatic definition; they are susceptible to a 

theological qualification of a different value...». 

And again: Paul VI, himself, to the explicit question of the 

British Cardinal Hennan, as to whether he had prohibited the Tridentine 

Mass, had replied: 

«It is not my intention to prohibit the “Tridentine 

Mass” in any way» 36. 

Vatican I Council (dogmatic) established and stated that: 

«The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors 

of Peter in order that, through His intercession, 

they preach a new doctrine, but in 

order that, through His assistance, they keep 

and expound faithfully the Revelation or deposit 

of Faith, transmitted by the Apostles» 37. 

Therefore it must be concluded that Paul VI’s “Novus Ordo 

Missae”, having introduced into his “New Church,” a new doctrine” 

– as we have previously demonstrated – cannot be a matter 

of obedience (being obedience in the service of Faith and not Faith 

in the service of obedience), hence any faithful is left with a theological 

duty of obedience to God 38 prior than to man, if he intends 

to remain inflexible in his profession of the Catholic Faith, 

according to the infallible doctrine of “Tradition”! 

36 Card. Hennan, Letter to Houghton Brown, president of the “Latin Mass Society”. 

37 D. S. 3070. 

38 Records, 4, 29 

265

266 

MASONIC” ECUMENISM 

– Martin Luther belonged to the sect of the Rosicrucians! To understand 

the relationship between Martin Luther, the Knights of the 

Rosicrucians, their aversion to the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross 

and the killing of God, here are some excerpts from the book by Leon 

Meurin: “Freemasonry: The Synagogue of Satan”, in which he 

writes: 

«There has never been an order of knights that were outside of 

Freemasonry! (...) a degree of secret society, whose origins go back beyond 

the seventeenth century. (...). 

That sad Knight of Hell, Luther, “wore his seal of a Rose mounted on 

a cross”, and it would go beyond that, the Andreins (Valentin Andreae 

and his disciples), switching to deism and gnostic naturalism would 

give to their sect, in Sweden (in the sixteenth century), the name, then 

so famous in the annals of depravity and apostasy of: Rosicrucians. 

(...). 

The degree of Rose-Cross, 18th of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish 

Rite, is a profane ridicule of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. (...). 

In the 18th degree, the Angel liar induces his slaves to offer a bloody 

sacrifice. There, the infernal mystery of Freemasonry is as deep as it is 

horrible. We are in the presence of a sacrifice to Satan. Just as the Synagogue 

prompted by Satan to crucify The Lamb of God, so too does 

the Masonic Synagogue crucifies him again in effigy (...). The degree 

of the Rose-Cross is essentially the figurative renewal of the 

bloody deicide committed for the first time at Calvary, as the Mass 

is the real and bloodless renewal». (pp. 329-333). 

– Elected spiritual heir Valentin Andreae, Amos Komensky (Comenius) 

undertook to lay the foundations of the modern world understood 

by designing a plan of Society extended to all peoples with its 

own proper plan of POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS ECU- 

MENISM. In the Comenius program, a Super-Church would rise 

from the darkness, which would integrate all religions through a 

Council of national churches, in order to reach in the name of a humanistic 

unity, a philanthropic and tolerant disposition to proclaim the 

equality and the coequal dignity of all religions!

*** 

– A Disciple of the Rosicrucians, Saint-Yves d’Alveydre (one who 

continued the work of Comenius), the Abbot Paul Roca (1830-1893), 

who was condemned and banned by the Index of the Holy Office in 

1888, was one most responsible for Catholic modernism. In contact 

with occultists of the Scottish Rite of Martinique and Theosophy, Roca, 

before the participants of the 1889 Congress of spiritists and spiritualists, 

proclaimed: «My Christ is not that one of the Vatican (...), 

Christ is the pure Adam-Kadmon of the Kabbalists, i.e. THE RE- 

LIGION OF MAN»! 

The “ecumenical plan” of Canon Roca stated that he would arrive at 

a religion and a «universality of Christianity which would place all 

the religious centers of the earth in harmony» (in “Glorieux centenaire). 

The rites will be simplified to facilitate the dissemination of new 

concepts of ecumenism: «I think the Divine worship, as expressed in 

the liturgy, ceremonial, ritual and precepts of the Roman Church 

will suffer in the near future in an ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, a 

transformation...will be put in harmony with the new state of consciousness 

and modern civilization». (P. Virion, “Mystery of iniquity”) 

The plan to destroy the Catholic Church, in the minds of these high 

initiatives and programs of Roca, demands the inclusion of Christianity 

in the Masonic “Universal Religion”. 

To do this, however, it was necessary: 

1. An adaptation of doctrine, which assumes the equivalence of all 

religions and all religious opinions; 

2. New dogma, first of all with Evolution, which assumes Gnostic 

Pantheism and Integral Humanism, to make the transition 

from the sphere of the Church’s mystical and sacramental 

mission (supernatural) to the politico-social (natural); 

3. Reconciliation with Masonry: For Roca, in fact, “pure Christianity” 

is “socialism” (...) that requires identification of Christ 

with humanity: the Gospel thus becomes the history of humanity, 

through sacrifice, comes to the resurrection! 

267

268 

The Catholic Mass.

Above: Paul VI and the “Protestant observers” who participated in the discussions on 

“Liturgical Reform”. 

Below: It could only come from Geneva, a document so disconcerting: the same altar, the 

two rites, one confusion. A Catholic priest and a Protestant pastor “concelebrating” in 

the presence of the youth, victims of the “ecumenical” disorder. Ut unum sint... in chaos!

Dance around the altar. 

Above: February 15, 1981. In Gesù Church - for the Centenary of Marquette University. 

Below: 11-8-96: The parish priest of La Colle-sur-Loup organized a “New Look” Mass at the suggestion 

of the President of the International Festival of Dance on the French Riviera. 

Page 269, Top: the Gloria and the Creed... in the Cathedral (New York). The celebrant is Fr. Cooke. 

Page 269, In the middle: In the parish of Amby - Holland (Maastricht “of 22-4-79). 

Page 269, bottom: In Bruges - France, in the presence of the bishop, Bishop De Smedt.

Above: The “New Mass”: a chair, a table, a cocktail. The bishop of Ivrea (Italy), His Excellency 

Bishop Luigi Bettazzi, president of Pax Christi International, while celebrating 

Mass for students at the entrance of Boarding house of Marie Fidelis School, Phonix 

Rood Euston (London). 

Below: “Tour Round” Mass. Fr. Brian Tomlinson o.f.m. (First on the left) is the chaplain 

of St. Lawerence Seminary, who celebrated the Mass of the 1st Friday for Volunteers of 

CYO.

Desecration: a dog in a... 

Tabernacle! 

Liturgies of the 

confused. In India 

(from “Bulletin 

Today” No 20 of 

26.2.1974). 

Participation of 

women in the 

celebration of 

Mass in Holland!

A Jazz Mass in the Cathedral 

of St. Patrick, New 

York: More than 3,000 

people attended this “Jazz 

Mass”, composed and performed 

by jazz musician 

Mary Lou Williams. 

Downstairs, on the main 

part of the Altar, Williams 

played and conducted her 

Mass, sung by the choir of 

four Archdiocesan schools. 

A missionary who “creates unity among all members of the Church” with the celebration 

- in shirtsleeves – of the Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice (from” Latin America-Noticeial 

“October 1981). 

Franciscan priests 

and nuns... in “liturgical 

action” (Holy 

Mass) in the house of 

the “Tabor Community.” 

The altar is a reel 

of cable “Code Ed”. 

275

Above: The new tools of the new liturgy! 

Below: The “First Eucharist (!) [First Holy Communion] in the family” with ordinary 

bread. Celebrant: The pastor of Lizzana (Rovereto - Trento - Italy).

A Philadelphia 

priest celebrating 

Mass in a Living 

room. 

Left: prayer and meditation, made public by Sister Eileen Bannon, the Franciscan College 

of St. Francis of Wheaton (Wheaton Il, 16/05/1980). Center: [Fr.] Don Hoshstatter, during 

a “holy dance”! He is “associate pastor” of St. Pius church in the Diocese of Peoria. 

Right: [Fr.] Don McGuire, “priest-dancer” of “Holy Family” in St. Paul. For five years 

his favorite partners: Mrs. Lila Bowers, wife of the local club instructor of “roller-skaters”. 

Mass 

for divorced 

Catholics in 

Boston.

280

APPENDIX 1 

THE “OATH” 

ON THE DAY OF HIS CORONATION 

Paul VI, too, on the day of his “Coronation” (June 30, 1963), 

pronounced the following “oath”, addressing Our Lord Jesus 

Christ: 

«EGO PROMITTO... 

Nihil de traditione quod a probatissimis praedecessoribus meis 

servatum reperi, diminuere vel mutare, aut aliquam novitatem admittere; 

sed ferventer, ut vere eorum discipulus sequipeda, totis 

viribus meis conatibusque tradita conservare ac venerari. 

Si qua vero emerserint contra disciplinam canonicam, emendare; 

sacrosque Canones et Constituta Pontificum nostrorum ut divina et 

coelestia mandata, custodire, utpote tibi redditurum me sciens de 

omnibus, quae profiteor, districtam in divino judicio rationem, cuius 

locum divina dignatione perago, et vicem intercessionibus tuis adjutus 

impleo. 

Si praeter haec aliquid agere praesumsero, vel ut praesumatur, 

permisero, eris mihi, in illa terribili die divini judicii, depropitius 

(...) (p. 43 vel 31). 

Unde et districti anathematis interdictioni subjicimus, si quis 

unquam, seu nos, sive est alius, qui novum aliquid praesumat contra 

huiusmodi evangelicam traditionem, et orthodoxae fidei Chris- 

281

tianaeque religionis integritatem, vel quidquam contrarium annitendo 

immutare, sive subtrahere de integritate fidei nostrae tentaverit, 

vel auso sacrilego hoc praesumentibus consentire». 

282 

(“Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum”, p. 54 vel 44, P.L. 1 vel 5). 

«I vow: 

– to change nothing of the received Tradition, and 

nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my Godpleasing 

predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit 

any innovation therein; to the contrary: with glowing 

affection as their truly faithful student and successor, to safeguard 

reverently the passed-on good, with my whole 

strength and utmost effort; 

– to cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical 

order, should such appear; to guard the Holy Canons and 

Decrees of our Popes as if they were the Divine ordinances of 

Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take 

through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with 

Thy support, being subject to the severest accounting before 

Thy Divine Tribunal over all that I shall confess. 

If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, 

or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be 

merciful to me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice (pp. 43 

o 31). 

Accordingly, without exclusion, we subject to severest 

excommunication anyone - be it ourselves or be it another - 

who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction 

to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the 

Orthodox Faith and the Christian Religion, or would seek to 

change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with 

those who undertake such a blasphemous venture». 

(from: “Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum”, p. 54 o 44, P.L. 1 o 5).

Dreadful oath indeed! But I believe it is no use by now to comment 

upon it, after the “revolution” the Church had to undergo 

under Paul VI’s Pontificate. A “revolution”, in fact, which left out 

no aspects as to Dogma, Morals, Liturgy, and even Discipline. A 

“revolution”, nonetheless, that had already been foreseen and 

courageously denounced by St. Pius X, in his condemnation of 

“Modernism” 1. 

Today, however, one can say that Paul VI utterly disregarded 

his “oath” before God, pronounced on the day of his coronation, by 

which he coerced himself “not to diminish or change anything of 

the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before 

me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors”… and “to 

cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order, and to 

guard the Holy Canons and Apostolic Constitutions of his Predecessors”.., 

“and to subject to the severest excommunication 

anyone - be it ourselves or be it another - who would dare to undertake 

anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic 

Tradition and the purity of the Orthodox Faith and the 

Christian Religion…”. 

Hence Paul VI’s “oath” was a “perjury”, since, de facto, he 

made it utterly null and void. 

Just as when he approved the “Dignitatis Humanae”, a Vatican 

II “declaration” on “religious freedom”, which granted, de facto, 

to any “error” what-so-ever, the rights that are the exclusive prerogative 

of the “truth”, namely, of “Divine Revelation”, for it is a 

“declaration” of “false freedom”, formally and infallibly always 

condemned by the Magisterium of the Church, for the reason that it 

goes counter to the Catholic doctrine. In Pius IX’s “Quanta Cura”, 

for example, the condemnation of that “religious freedom” is quite 

clear: “… Liberty of perdition… against the doctrine of Scripture, 

of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers”; synthesis of various 

errors that, “by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, 

and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines 

severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command 

1 Pius X, “Lamentabili” of July 3, 1907, DB 200; “Pascendi” of Sept. 8, 1907. 

283

that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic 

Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned”. 

But Paul VI, in spite of that patent “condemnation” of one of 

his predecessors, confirmed the “Dignitatis Humanae” in these 

other terms: 

284 

«Each and every thing, established in this Declaration, 

has met with the satisfaction (?!) of the Fathers 

of the holy Council. And we, by virtue of the 

Apostolic authority bestowed upon us by Christ, 

together with the Venerable Fathers, in the Holy 

Spirit, approve them, decree them and establish 

them, and that which has thus been established, 

we dispose that it be promulgated to the glory 

of God». 

(Rome, at St. Peter, December 7, 1965. I, Paul VI, Bishop of 

the Catholic Church). 

It is a clear and barefaced rebellion to the doctrine of the former 

Catholic Church, and many voices soared in protest. But such an 

enormity became norm of the “New Conciliar Church”, so much 

so that the “New Church” held, by now, any “De Propaganda 

Fide” Ministry, counterproductive. 

Hence one has plenty of reasons to be concerned about Paul VI’s 

soul, after his passing from this life to the Supreme Tribunal of God, 

where he must have had to “account” for his 15 years of Pontificate, 

during which there was no significance to the words and 

deeds to the “oath” he had made on June 30, 1963. 

A Paul VI, that is, who betrayed 

CHRIST, CHURCH and HISTORY!

285

Top: Magnification of the back of the left hand of Paul VI, engraved with “fivepointed 

star”. 

On the following page: Detail of tile original N ° 12 of “bronze doors” of St. 

Peter’s Basilica (built to mark the 80th birthday of Paul VI) showing Paul VI 

with the “five-pointed star (which we highlighted red), engraved on the back of 

your left hand. 

286 

APPENDIX 2 

“FIVE-PONTED STAR” 

“SIGNATURE” OF THE PONTIFICATE 

OF PAUL VI

288 

Lenin child watches over little “companion”. 

In Soviet primary schools under the Communist regime, the 

students, on the anniversary of the October Revolution (October 

25) and the birthday of Lenin (April 22), received a 

small “five-pointed red star”. In the center, there was the 

image of Lenin at the age of six years. 

This decoration, in Soviet pedagogy, was to replace the religious 

images.

“Five-pointed Star” 

“Signature” of the Pontificate of Paul VI 

“FIVE-POINTED STAR”: 

“SYMBOL” OF THE HATRED TO 

GOD AND RELIGION 

Karl Marx had written: «Religions 

are the opium of the people»; «The 

abolition of religion as the illusory 

happiness of the people is the demand 

for their real happiness» 1. And 

again, «The root of man is man himself… 

The critique of religion comes 

to the doctrinal conclusion that, TO 

MAN, THE SUPREME BEING IS 

MAN» 2. 

Lenin’s hatred for religion was every 

bit as fierce: «All religious ideas are 

an unspeakable abomination. God is 

a monstrous cadaver. Faith in God is 

a weakness»; «From now on we shall 

be pitiless with everyone. We shall 

destroy everything, and on the ruins 

WE SHALL BUILD OUR TEM- 

PLE». 

Lunaciarskij, Minister of Education of 

the Lenin government, in lieu of the religion 

of God proposed the religion of 

hatred: «Down with the love of thy 

neighbor! Hatred, that’s what is 

wanted! WE MUST LEARN HOW 

TO HATE. THAT IS OUR RELI- 

GION. Through hatred, we shall 

conquer the world». 

Stalin, too, was brimming over with 

hatred against Religion: «There is no 

room for neutrality when it comes to 

Religion. Against the propagators of 

1 Karl Marx, “Manuscripts”. 

religious absurdities, the Communist 

Party can but pursue its war». 

Khrushchev stayed the course of his 

predecessors: «The struggle against 

Religion is at one with the shaping 

up of the NEW MAN, citizen of the 

Communist society». 

And thus the Religion of God was 

abolished, and, in Her place, there appeared 

a new one: the religion of man. 

The Hierarchy, the institutions, the 

places of cult, the rites and any reference 

to the Religion of God were 

jeered at, repressed, encroached on, 

abolished, eliminated, and erased. 

Even the images and the religious 

symbols suffered a similar fate and 

were outlawed, and, in their place, 

there appeared a strange symbol: The 

“Five Pointed Star”. 

In Soviet elementary schools, under 

the Communist regime, pupils received 

a little “five pointed red Star”, 

in whose center stood the image of sixyear-old 

Lenin. It was the “Lenin 

child” watching over the little “comrade”, 

a symbol that, in Soviet pedagogy, 

was to replace religious images. 

The “five pointed red Star” thus 

emerged as the symbol of the “new 

Communist religion”; a “religion” 

hinged upon the hatred to God, and 

thus to man, and the alleged aspiration 

of shaping up the “new man”, edifying 

a new “Temple”. 

2 Karl Marx, “Morceaux Choisis”. 

289

The “five pointed red Star” thus became 

the “symbol” of what is the most 

anti-Christian that one could envision 

and conceive; it became the “symbol” 

of the systematic war to the bitter 

end against God, against Christianity 

and against the Christian Civilization. 

In fact, Communism was the political 

re-proposition of the Masonic and Satanic 

Order of the Illuminati of 

Bavaria, whose secret program it had 

adopted, without changing a word, 

turning it into the “Communist Manifesto” 

of 1848. The publication of the 

“Manifesto” was financed by two Illuminati: 

Clinton Roosevelt and Horace 

Greely. 

Marx belonged to the Cologne’s 

“Apollo” Lodge 3. Lenin was initiated 

to Freemasonry by the “Union de 

Belleville” Lodge of the Grand Orient 

of France 4. Trotsky entered Freemasonry 

in 1897 5. 

Lunaciarskij belonged to the Grand 

Orient of France 6. Mikhail Gorbachev 

has been a member of the Masonic 

“Trilateral Commission” since 

1989 7, and even a member of the Masonic 

and Satanic “Lucis Trust” 8.Igor 

Gaidar, leader of the “Russian 

Choice” Party, belongs to the “Cooperation” 

Lodge 9. Edward Shevardnadze, 

former Soviet Foreign Minister 

and current President of Georgia, is the 

head of the Georgian Freemasonry and 

has been an affiliate, since 1992, of the 

“Magisterium” Lodge 10. Anatoli 

3 Hiram, n. 5, 1990, p. 114. 

4 Y. Moncomble, “Les Vrais Responsables 

de la Troisiéme Guerre Mondiale”, Editions 

Faits et Documents, 1980, p. 86. 

5 Platonov, “Bethlehem”, Rodnik Editions, 

Moscow 1996, p. 376. 

290 

Ciubas, head of the Yeltsin’s Administration, 

has been a member of the “Cooperation” 

Lodge since 1993 11, and so 

on and so forth. 

This “Masonic reality” of Russian 

Communism was but a carry-over in 

the Masonic tradition of those that had 

preceded them. Kerenski was, in fact, 

the President of all the Russian 

Lodges, and had been in the “Ursa 

Minor” Lodge since 1912 12. 

Election Manifesto of the DC [Christian 

Democratic Party of Italy] of 1948, in 

which appears the head of Stalin that 

comes out from a “five-pointed star”. 

6,7 Idem, p. 360 and p. 427. 

8 “Bethlehem”, EIR, 1989, p. 29. 

9 Platonov, “cited works”, p. 426. 

10 Idem, p. 438. 

11 Idem. 

12 Idem, p. 354.

“FIVE POINTED STAR”: 

THE MASONIC “SYMBOL” 

To Freemasonry, symbology and ritual 

are “everything”. The Freemason 

Augusto Lista wrote: “The Real initiation 

(…) lies entirely, and I say 

ENTIRELY, in Masonic symbolism 

and ritualism” 1. 

Masonic symbolism on the one hand, 

and iron organization, on the other, 

are the two pillars upon which the Masonic 

edifice rests, far more than upon 

the pseudo-philosophical ravings no 

one understands and which convince 

no one” 2. 

Of the myriad of symbols the Freemason 

one is confronted with when entering 

the Lodge, one stands out above all 

the others: it is the symbol of the “Five 

Pointed Star”, the “Masonic Symbol” 

par excellence. The dictionary of 

Masonic symbols elevates it to the 

station of “Masonic symbol” by 

antonomasia. 

In fact, such “Star” is found on the 

Masonic handkerchiefs, rugs and 

Lodge paintings, on sketches and 

representations of the Lodge; it is 

observed sculpted on monuments, engraved 

on Masonic jewels and medallions; 

it appears on the portraits of 

the initiated, on allegorical Masonic 

representations; it shows on the emblems 

of the 2nd, 3d, 4th, 9th, 12th 

and 24th degree of the Freemasonry’s 

Scottish Rite; it stands out on the Masonic 

“aprons” of the “Apprentice” 

and of the “Master”; it is placed in the 

1 Augusto Lista, “The Spiritual Bases of 

Universal Freemasonry”. Rome Ankh, 

1946, p. 22. 

2 P. F. Giantulli, “The Essence of Italian 

Freemasonry: Naturalism”, Pucci Cipriani 

Editore - Firenze 1973, p. 62. 

The “Flaming Star” 

“The symbol of Freemasonry”. 

The “5-pointed star” inside 

“a square and a compass”. 

The “5-pointed star” limited 

by a “square and a compass”. 

291

central point of the “collar” worn by 

the Grand Masters; but its highest 

place is at the summit of the Palace 

of the Grand Lodge of England (the 

Freemason’s Hall), located in London’s 

“Great Queen Street”. 

292 

Masonic Handkerchief 

with “5-pointed stars”. 

The Jewel of the “Master” 

with “5-pointed star”. 

The Jewel of the “Royal Arch” 

with “5-pointed star”. 

Masonic Portrait of Freemason 

Napoleon Bonaparte, with 7 

“5-pointed stars”.

“Dictionary of Masonic Symbols” 

(from: Historia, Les Francs-maçons, 1973) 

Here is the meaning of some masonic 

symbols: 

… 

“pentagram”: “man” 

… 

“The companion Star, always present in 

the Temple when the Lodge works on the 

2 nd degree” 

Note that in this “Dictionary of Masonic 

Symbols” the “Flaming Star” is placed 

high up in the words of the same title, to 

signify that this is the Masonic “symbol” 

par excellence, whose meaning is: man. 

293

Above: Meeting of the Lodge. The “five-pointed star” is placed above and center - the 

place of honor at the Masonic hall. 

Below: Meeting in a military lodge. The “five-pointed star” is the center of the “square 

and compass” that stands on the Chair of the Lodge. 

294

Emblem of the 9th degree 

Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite 

«The emblem of the “Elect of the 

Nine” “ is topped by a golden halo 

surrounding the “Flaming Star”» . 

(from: The Heraldic Emblems of 

Masonry, Convivio/Nardini Editore - 

Firenze 1988, p. 32). 

Emblem of 2nd degrees 


«The emblem of the “Fellow Craft” 

is topped by a golden halo surrounding 

the “flaming star” with the letter 

“G”». 



Firenze 1988, p. 18). 

Emblem of the 12th grade 


«The emblem of the “Grand Master 

Architect” is topped by a golden halo 

around a ‘”Flaming Star”». 



Firenze 1988, p. 38). 

295

“Grand Master” 

Apron. (See Marcel 

Valmy, The Masons, Ed 

Cantini, Firenze 1991, 

p. 174). 


with the letter “G” appears 

in the “square and 

compass,” in the center 

of the apron. 

296 

“Grand Master” Apron, 

eighteenth century - 

OFM Rosenau. 

(See Marcel Valmy, The 

Masons, Ed Cantini, 

Firenze 1991, p. 173). 


with the letter “G” in it, 

stands in the top center 

of the apron, above all 

the other Masonic symbols.

The Grand Master of the 

Grand Lodge of France, 

Lawyer Richard Dupuy, with 

the apron, on which stands the 

“five-pointed star”. 

Necklace from “Grand Master”, twentieth century - 

Lodge “Zur Kette” (“To the Chain”), Monaco (See 

Marcel Valmy, The Masons, Ed Cantini, Firenze 1991, p. 

182). The “five-pointed star” appears at the top and the 

lowest point of the series, where it engages the “square”. 

The former Grand Master 

of the Palazzo Giustiniani, 

Armando Corona, 

who wears a necklace 

of “Grand Master”. 

Magnification of the 

central part of the 

“necklace by 

Grand Master” 

(worn by former 

Grand Master, 

Armando Corona), 

which appears in 

“five-pointed star”. 

297

“Freemason’s Hall”: The Grand Lodge of England, “Great Queen Street” in London. 

298


“SYMBOL” OF MAN 

The central theme and dominating 

sign of Masonic symbolism is Man. 

Man inspires the entire Masonic 

symbology: «All the rites, fables, legends, 

myths refer to one and one 

subject alone: man. The same is true 

with Masonic symbolism» 1. 

Now, the true “Spirit” is not the sentimental 

one, but the initiatic one. The 

Freemason, in the composition of the 

“Square” and of the “Compass” – the 

most common symbols through which 

Freemasonry is manifested – “sees” the 

“Pentagram” (or five-pointed-Star”) 

both inscribed and circumscribed 2 (see 

figures on p. 291). 

And, in its explicit representations, as 

in the underlying occult ones, the 

“Five-Pointed-Star” outdoes, in consequence, 

all the others, even for its capacity 

to express and symbolize the anthropological 

and physical aspects, 

down to the most rooted and profound 

peculiarities of human nature. 

And so the “Five-Pointed-Star”, or 

“Blazing Star”, becomes to Freemasonry 

the profoundest and holiest of 

its symbols. 

Guillemain de Saint-Victor states, 

«The “Blazing Star” is the center 

whence the light originates» 3. Gédagle 

writes, «“The Blazing Star” represents 

the light enlightening the disciples 

of the Masters (…); it is, therefore, 

the symbol of Intelligence and 

Science» 4. 

1 G. Ceschina: article appeared on the Magazine 

of Palazzo Giustiniani, under the title: 

“Masonic Symbolism”. 

2 Jules Boucher, “La Symbolique Maçonnique”, 

Editions Dervy-Livres 1983, p. 10 

and p. 273. 

3 Guillemain de Saint-Victor, “Précieux 

Recueil”, p. 60. 

4 “Dictionnaire Maçonnique”, 1921, p. 48. 

«The” Pentagram with the point 

above is considered as active and 

beneficial (...) the “Pentagram” 

reverse, with two points up, is 

considered passive and evil». 

(From Jules Boucher, “La symbolique 

maçonnique”, Dervy- 

Livres, 1963, p. 224). 

Drawing from the book: 

Oswald Wirth, “La Franc-Maconnerie 

rendu intelligible à ses 

adeptes. - II. Le Compagnon”. 

Laval, Le Symbolisme, 1963, p. 59. 

299

A Masonic document reads, «“The 

Blazing Star” is the emblem of free 

thought, of the sacred fire of genius, 

which elevates man to lofty achievements» 

5. 

Wirth observes that the «“Pentalpha” 

(...) is a magical symbol referring to 

the powers of human will» 6. In the 

dictionary of Masonic symbols, the 

“Five-Pointed-Star” has this significance: 

man 7. 

The Freemason Gorel Porciatti writes, 

«“The Blazing Star”, that appears to 

the victorious Comrade of earthly attractions, 

is the star of Human Genius; 

it has five points, corresponding 

to the head and to the four limbs of 

Man; it is the Star of the Microcosm 

that, in Magic, personifies the sign of 

Sovereign Will, that is, the irresistible 

instrument of action of the 

Initiated. In order for it to carry this 

value, it must be sketched out in such a 

manner that a human person might be 

inscribed into it; it must, that is, have 

the point pointing upwards» 8. The man, 

within the “The Five-Pointed-Star”, 

is occasionally associated to the 7 symbols 

of the heavenly bodies. Wirth, in 

his book “The Tarots”, explains that 

the amalgam of these 7 symbols forms 

a monogram «linking to the devil». 

5 Petit Mémento Maçonnique, 1921, p. 48. 

6 Oswald Wirth, “Les Mysteres de l’Art 

Royal”, 1932, p. 197. 

7 Dictionnaire des symboles, “Hors Serie 

30 - Historia: les Francs Maçons”, 1973, 

p. 58-59. 

8 Umberto Gorel Porciatti, “Masonic Symbology 

– Azure Freemasonry”, Roma 

Orizzonti 1946, p. 112. 

300 

This picture, taken from the book 

“De Occulta Philosophia” H. Cornelius 

Agrippa of Nettesheim, shows 

the man in the “Five-pointed Star” 

associated with the 7 Rosicrucian alchemical 

symbols representing the 

celestial bodies: Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, 

Mercury and Venus, and in the 

middle: Sun and Moon. 

Here is the comment by Oswald 

Wirth: “Seven is the number of 

harmony” and the amalgamation of 

these 7 symbols from the monogram, 

reproduced below, that “connects ... 

the Devil”! (See Oswald Wirth, “I 

Tarocchi”, Ed. Mediterranee, Rome 

1990, pp. 57-358).


“SEAL” 

OF THE MASONIC POWER 

It is now clear why the programs of the 

sect are inscribed in its symbology, and 

why it rarely omits to initial with its 

symbols its initiatives and its triumphs, 

and, consequently, the historical 

occurrences originating from its 

lodges, as well as the institutions in 

which it wields its occultic power. 

And it is precisely the “five-pointed- 

Star”, or “Masonic Pentalpha”, the 

symbol which, more frequently, 

Freemasonry is keen to mark its own 

conquests and symbolize its own 

dominance. 

In fact, it is the very Star that covers 

the flag of the United States of America. 

It is the very Star that symbolized 

the “Bolshevik Revolution”; the very 

Star that appeared on the emblem of 

the “Red Brigades”; it is the very Star 

that appeared on the emblem of the former 

Italian Communist Party (PCI) 

and on that of the former Democratic 

Party of the Left (PDF) [name the former 

Italian Communist Party (PCI) 

took up on November 24, 1989, approving 

party’s secretary Achille Occhetto’s 

proposal at the famous 

Bolognina caucus, at Bologna]; it is the 

very Star that stands out on the Chinese, 

Cuban, North Korean, Vietnamese, 

Algerian, Tunisian, Moroccan, 

and Somali flag, and on the flags 

of most Nations, as well as on the insignia 

of the Republic of Italy. 

The “five-pointed-Star” appears also 

on the emblems of the United States 

Army, as on the Russian and Chinese 

ones. The “Star” stands out also on the 

“Medal of the Order of the October 

Revolution”, the high honor that used 

to be bestowed upon Heads of States 

and Ambassadors; and on the “Medal 

of the Order of the Patriot War”, bestowed 

upon all the Soviets that fought 

in World War II. 

Flag of USA 

Flag of USSR 

Flag of China 

Medal of the Order of the 

Patriotic War. 

301

Even the “epaulettes” on the collar of 

Italian military uniforms carry the 

same significance. They were prescribed, 

in 1871, by the then Minister 

of War, Cesare Ricotti-Magnai, 

whom, as a good Freemason, had suppressed 

military Chaplains and Sunday 

Mass, “replacing the cross of the 

Savoy with the Masonic Star” 1. His 

“sister” Maria Rygier of the French 

Lodge “Human Right”, wrote in a 

book, on this subject: «… (Freemasonry) 

has given Italy her most precious 

treasure: the holy Pentalpha, 

and has wanted that the Blazing Star 

be put on display on the uniform of the 

soldiers, undoubtely because the magical 

virtue of the blood, shed for the 

Homeland, would vitalize the august 

pentacle» 2. 

Recently, “Avvenire” 3 magazine, too, 

in a brief article emblematically titled: 

“Masonic Star in the Square of the 

Palace”, speaks of the restoration of 

the magnificent Papal square before 

Montecitorio Palace [Italian Parliament 

seat] “embellished” with a «wealth of 

“five-pointed-Stars”, that is, the 

most important and most widely 

known symbol of Freemasonry». And 

«That Star has been shining ever 

since the unity of the Nation was realized 

by Freemasonry against the 

Catholic Church. The circumstance is 

recalled, with exemplar clarity, also by 

“Civiltà Cattolica” magazine of 1887. 

Which reads: “The five-pointed-star 

is the lucky star Freemasonry presented 

Italy with, and, with insolent 

sectarian effrontery, imposed upon 

1 Rosario F. Esposito, “The good Deeds of 

the Lay, Anti-Clerical, and Freemasons”, 

Edizioni Paoline, Roma 1979, p. 273. 

2 Marie Rygier, “La Franc-Maçonneirie 

Italienne Devant la Guerre et Devant le 

Fascisme”, Paris, Gloton, 1930, p. 32. 

3 “Avvenire”, June 26, 1998, p. 7. 

302 

Medal of the Order of the 

October Revolution. 

Flag of Turkey 

Flag of Tunisia

the armed forces, and planted on the 

pillars before the building of the Finance 

Ministry in Rome, and 

sneaked in everywhere, even on the 

coat-of-arms of the Republics and of 

the Monarchies, on shop signs, on 

the necklaces of frivolous ladies, on 

the caps and toys of children”». 

Emblem of the Italian Republic 

Flag of Syria 

Flag of Cuba 

Flag of Morocco 

Flag of North Korea 

Flag of Vietnam 

Flag of Algeria 

Flag of Somalia 

303

304 


ON THE FOREHEAD OF THE 

“BAPHOMET” 

The “five-pointed-Star” “shines” on 

the forehead of the “god” of Freemasonry, 

the “Baphomet”. 

Alphonse Louis Constant defines the 

Baphomet 1: “The Beak of the Devil”. 

He then affirms, “Let us say boldly 

and resoundingly that all of the initiated 

to the occult sciences have worshipped, 

worship and will always 

worship that which is signified by 

that symbol” 2. 

Father Rosario F. Esposito writes that 

«(The Baphomet) was carried in procession 

during the initiation rite of 

the 29 th degree (Grand Scottish of St. 

Andrew, in Scotland) and it is object 

of pseudo-adoration in numerous female 

initiations. The ceremonies that 

were once celebrated in his honor were 

the same of phallic character celebrated 

in honor of the Apis Ox» 3. 

Writes the Freemason John Symonds, 

«abjure the faith and abandon yourself 

to all the pleasures (…) Glorify 

the Baphomet; he is the true god! 

Renounce Christianity and do as you 

please!» 4. 

Thus the Baphomet would be the god 

of base morals. Not only that, but the 

“five-pointed-Star” would then be the 

“symbol” of those foul “morals”. It is 

1 Alphonse Louis Constant, “High Magic 

Ritual”, p. XI. 

2 Idem, p. 209. 

3 Father Rosario Esposito, Freemasonry 

and Italy”. See glossary at appendix, under 

the voice “Baphomet”. 

4 John Symonds, “The Great Beast”, p. 

192-193. 

The figure represents the Baphomet, 

the god of Masonry, by the monstrosity 

of its forms, symbolizes the Masonic 

“Universal Religion”. 

On the front of Baphomet stands the 

“five-pointed star”, designed - according 

to the requirements of ritual magic - 

without removing the hand from the paper, 

tracing a “triple interlaced triangle”, 

which is the symbol of the “sublime 

secret”, the “key to all science”, 

the “truth without veils”, the 

“supreme initiation” of Freemasonry.

the Freemason Gorel Porciatti to say 

it: «(The “five-pointed-Star), when 

turned upside-down becomes the 

symbol of the bestiality of the foul instincts; 

in it, so upturned, one can inscribe 

the head of a beak (the head of 

the Baphomet!)» 5. 

The Freemason Jules Doinel, founder 

of the “Gnostic Church”, in his book 

“Lucifer Unmasked”, is even more 

explicit: «The ‘Blazing Star’ is Lucifer 

himself»; and he adds that, to 

each of the points of the Star, corresponds 

one of man’s five senses: «The 

eyesight is the perception of the Luciferian 

world. The sense of smell is of 

the “good Luciferian odor”. The touch 

is the perception of the demoniac action 

upon flesh and spirit. The taste is 

the anticipated perception of the Satanic 

bread and wine which, later on, the 

Rosacrucian knight is to break up and 

drink at the supper of the 18 th degree. 

The hearing is the perception of the 

voice of Satan» 6. 

The Freemason Alphonse Louis Constant, 

in his book “Ritual of High 

Magic”, writes on the subject: «This 

Star indicates the presence of Satan 

and of the light he radiates onto 

Freemasonry». 

5 Umberto Gorel Porciatti, “Masonic Symbology 

– Azure Freemasonry”, Roma 

Orizzonti 1946, p. 112. 

6 Jules Boucher, “Masonic Symbology”, 

Ed. Atanòr 1990, p. 236. 

The “five-pointed star” shape, ie 

with two points upwards, is the symbol 

of the animal instincts of the unclean, 

and inverted it you can inscribe 

the head of a goat (the head of 

Baphomet). 

Above: Drawing from the book by 

Oswald Wirth: “La Franc-maçonnerie 

rendu intelligible à ses 

adeptes”. 

Below: Drawing from the book of 

Joules Boucher: “La symbolique 

maçonnique”. 

305

306 


“SYMBOL” 

OF THE “CULT OF MAN” 

In an excerpt of the “Secret Instruction”, 

given by the Unknown Superiors 

of Freemasonry to General 

Giuseppe Garibaldi, 1 we read: 

«It is thus essential, to you, Brother 

(…) that you do not forget that, in our 

Order, no degree unveils the Truth 

completely; it only renders the veil 

that hides it from the gazes of the curious 

a little thinner. To us, invested with 

the supreme power, to us alone, it 

strips it bare, and inundating our intelligence, 

our spirit and our heart, it 

makes us know, see, and perceive that: 

1. Man is, at one time, “GOD”, 

“PONTIFF” and “KING” OF HIM- 

SELF. That is the “sublime secret”, 

the “key to every science”, and the 

“apex of the initiation”. 

2. Freemasonry, perfect synthesis of 

all that is human, is thus “GOD”, 

“PONTIFF” and “KING” OF HU- 

MANITY. And now it deploys its universality, 

its vitality, and its power. 

3. As for us, grand Masters, we form 

the holy Battalion of the sublime Patriarch 

that is, in turn, “GOD”, 

“PONTIFF” and “KING” OF 

FREEMASONRY. 

Here, Brother, is the “THIRD TRI- 

ANGLE”, the “THIRD TRIPLE 

TRUTH” which will give your intelligence, 

your mind and your heart the ineffable 

happiness of the absolute possession 

of the “Truth without veils”. 

1 The secret instruction was published by 

Paolo Rosen in his book: “L’Ennemie Sociale”. 

2 Enrico Delassus, “The Issue of the Present 

Hour”, Desclèe and C. Tipografi-Edi- 

(…) The total teaching of the 33 degrees 

of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry 

is contained in this passage: 

“Man is, to himself, God, Pontiff and 

King: he is similar to God”». 

Now, this self-divinization of man 

constitutes the first “triple truth”: 

the “FIRST TRIANGLE”. The second 

“triple truth” is the self-divinization 

of Freemasonry: the 

“SECOND TRIANGLE”. The third 

“triple truth” is the self-divinization 

of the Heads of Freemasonry: the 

“THIRD TRIANGLE”. 

That is the deepest and most jealously 

kept secret by the echelon of 

Freemasonry. What now remains to be 

underscored is that this “truth without 

veils”, namely, the “self-divinization” 

of Humanity, of Freemasonry, and of 

the Battalion in command, constitute 

the three “triple truths” that, represented 

by the three “gilded” triangles, 

mutually intertwined, “compose” 

the “five-pointed-Star”. 

The “cult of Lucifer”, thus manifested 

in the “Secret Instructions” or in 

Freemasonry’s most reserved documents, 

is, nonetheless, presented publicly 

almost invariably under the more 

presentable form of “religion of man” 

or “religion of Humanity”, or – which 

makes no difference – as “cult of 

Man” or “cult of Humanity”. 

Freemasonry makes no mystery of being 

promoter of this Satanic religion. 

The French politician and Freemason 

Viviani, insisted on this point: «(We 

must) substitute the ‘religion of humanity’ 

for the Catholic Religion» 2. 

Wrote the high initiate Tommaso Ven- 

tori 1907, vol. I, p. 28. 

3 Tommaso Ventura, “Freemasonry on Trial 

– Its True Origin – Its True Essence”. 

Rome, Atanòr, 1961, p. 113-114.

tura: «Authentic Freemasonry (…) reveals 

a new vision of History; it is Humanity 

renewing itself that equilibrates 

the classes, brings the Nations 

together, and brings redemption to 

all, not in heaven, but on earth» 3. 

The Masonic magazine “Monde 

Maçonnique” made the following 

statement: «Freemasonry makes us 

know that there is but one true religion 

and, as a consequence, but one 

natural religion: THE CULT OF 

HUMANITY» 4. 

In the work “The Deification of Humanity, 

or the Positive Side of 

Freemasonry”, Father Patchtler 

demonstrated rather well the significance 

Freemasonry gives the word 

“humanity”, and the use it makes of it. 

That word – says he – postulates, 

1. The absolute independence of 

man in the intellectual, religious 

and political domain; 

2. denies for him any supernatural 

end; 

3. affirms that the purely natural 

perfection of the human descent 

be headed for the avenues of 

progress. 

To these three errors correspond the 

three stations on the way of evil: 

1. Humanity without God; 

2. Humanity that makes itself God; 

3. Humanity against God. 

Such is the edifice that Freemasonry 

wants to build through its “religion of 

Humanity” or “cult of Man”; and the 

“five-pointed-Star” is the “dynamic” 

symbol of this path toward the Satanic 

aim of the “man-god”. 

4 “Monde Maçonnique” of January and 

May 1870 (E. Delassus, cited work, vol. I, 

p. 35). 

The Grand Master, Derosière (center) 

of the French National Grand Lodge. In 

the background, the “triangle” with the 

letter “G”. 

In the book of Masonic symbolism, 

Boucher explains the reason for choosing 

this particular triangle, as a form to 

be taken to the “Delta light” that appears 

in the Lodge: «We give preference 

to an isosceles triangle where the 

angle at the top measures 108 ° and 36° 

angles at the base (...) because its proportions 

are imposed by themselves. 

Three of these triangles allows [us] to 

form a “Pentagram”, which, for this 

reason is called “triple braided Triangle”». 

(pp. 92-93). 

We reproduce the figure that appears in 

the book, adding colors for a better understanding. 

307

308 

The “bronze door” in St. Peter’s Basilica - Rome. 

This “door”, called “The Door of Good and Evil”, was executed by Luciano Minguzzi, 

and was put in place in 1977 on the birthday of Paul VI (born September 26, 1897). 

Next page: The original “tile” No. 12, which depicted the Second Vatican Council, with 

four council Fathers between John XXIII and Paul VI.

THE “FIVE POINTED STAR”: 

ON THE BRONZE HAND 

OF PAUL VI 

It is the “bronze door” when it was inaugurated. 

On the “Door of Good”, in 

panel 12, there appeared the “Second 

Vatican Ecumenical Council”: four 

Conciliar Fathers between John 

XXIII and Paul VI”. 

However, while John XXIII and the 

other four conciliar Fathers were 

sculpted with the face looking forward, 

Paul VI (the last on the right) was 

sculpted instead in profile, so as to present, 

in good showing, his left hand 

bearing the engraving of the Masonic 

insignia: the “five-pointed-Star”, 

or “Masonic Pentalpha”. 

Shortly after the inauguration of that 

“new bronze door” of St. Peter’s 

Basilica, I went to see it. Observing it 

closely, I immediately noticed that Masonic 

emblem on the back of Paul VI’s 

left hand. So I rushed to see a Cardinal, 

to report the fact. He assured me that 

he would promptly look after the matter. 

In fact, when soon afterwards I re- 

turned to Rome, just to check on that 

“bronze door”, I noticed immediately 

that that Masonic emblem on the 

back of Paul VI’s left hand had been 

scraped off: all one could see was the 

live red of the copper. It was all clear! 

Having been discovered, those responsible 

for the fact had seen, first, that 

the Masonic symbol were erased 

from the hand, and then – as I myself 

could see on a subsequent trip to Rome 

– had panel N. 12 replaced with another 

– the current one – on which, 

however, the six previous figures had 

now become five, as anyone can see. 

Now, how could anyone explain that 

a Pope (Paul VI) had his image 

sculpted onto that “bronze door”, 

with that Masonic symbol on the 

back of his hand, well aware that it 

would remain there as a testimony, 

down the centuries, and that He, Paul 

VI, would be judged a “Freemason 

Pope?” 

And certainly one cannot say that that 

work of the sculptor Minguzzi’s had 

been executed unbeknownst to him 

and without his approval, since it was 

309

310 

THE DOOR OF GOOD AND EVIL 

Author: Luciano Minguzzi - implementation in 1977 

Produced for the birthday of Paul VI (born in Concesio November 

26, 1897). 

Shutter of EVIL 

1 - Martyrs Vitale and Agricola (the slaves are equal to the 

slave master) 

2 - A hawk holds a dove in its claws 

3 - St. Andrew martyred on the cross as St. Peter 

4 - Slavery in humanity 

5 - The religious and political martyrs (torture and repression) 

6 - Abel killed his brother, Cain. 

7 - The Bad Thief Gesta dies unrepentant to the left of Jesus 

Shutter of GOOD 

8 - St. Augustine with the sermon eradicates heresy 

9 - A pair of doves nesting 

10 - John baptizes a hermit 

11 - An African cardinal gives the Eucharist to a soldier 

12 - The Second Vatican Council. Four Council Fathers 

between John XXIII and Paul VI 

13 - The Raising of Lazarus 

14 - Archangel Raphael accompanies Tobias.

This is the “second tile” No. 12 of “bronze door”, which replaced the “first”, representing 

the “five-pointed star” on the back of the left hand of Paul VI. 

Right: Magnification 

of the figure of Paul VI, 

with the “five-pointed star” 

(which we highlighted in red) 

on the back of his left hand, 

as it appeared in the “first tile”. 

him to bless it on the date of his 

birthday, as it was also published, 

later, on a “Special Insert” of the 

“Osservatore Romano”, for his 

eightieth birthday 1, and precisely 

with that satanic mark on his 

hand, a “signature”, as it were – 

and not a common one – of his 

Pontificate”. 

1 Special Insert of the “Osservatore 

Romano”, Sunday, September 25, 

1977, p. XI. 

311

312 

Special insert “L’Osservatore Romano,” Sunday, September 25, 1977, p. XI.


“SIGNATURE” OF PAUL VI’s 

PONTIFICATE 

This statement is disquieting, as this 

“signature” of the “five-pointed- 

Star”, sculpted on the back of Paul 

VI’s hand, on the original “panel” of 

St. Peter’s Basilica’s “bronze door”, 

is perhaps the most disconcerting and 

reckless act of a tremendous reality 

that, throughout his Pontificate, kept 

coming to the surface, to then give 

shape to a mosaic that lay bare Paul 

VI’s incredible and unspeakable approach 

toward Freemasonry. 

And that, he did following 250 years 

of renewed “excommunications”, 

“admonishments”, “punishments”, 

and after about 200 “documents” of 

the Magisterium of the Church against 

Freemasonry, and after 16 Encyclicals 

and over 590 “convictions” against 

that sect, branded as “Kingdom of Satan” 

by Leo XIII in his 1884 Encyclical 

“Humanum Genus”. 

Immediately after the publication of 

that Encyclical, the high initiate Tommaso 

Ventura, having recognized 

“Humanum Genus” as the “most celebrated 

solemn anti-Masonic document”, 

wrote, «Pope Leo XIII was 

right on the point; he perceived what 

Freemasonry was; he uncovered its 

precise physiognomy; he lay bare its 

aspirations in unequivocal terms» 1. 

Now, the Church never did entertain 

any uncertainties or doubts in Her 

struggle against Freemasonry; it was 

only with the advent of Vatican II, 

and with Paul VI in particular, that 

the “new approach” reversed the 

previous position of the Magisterium 

1 Tommaso Ventura, “Freemasonry on 

Trial – Its True Origin – Its True 

Essence”. Atanòr, Roma 1961, p. 113-114. 

2 Luigi Villa, “Paul VI... beatified?”, Edizioni 

Civiltà Brescia 1998, Chapter IV, p. 

of the Church, adopting “ecumenical” 

and “liberal” stances toward 

Freemasonry up to the point of “looking 

forward to a peace between the 

two institutions”. 

In order to shed some light upon this 

odd aspect of Paul VI’s personality, 

we list a few of the many “facts” and 

“remarks” relating to his person 2: 

1) A Masonic magazine reads: «The 

Grand Master Gamberini, on the 

very day of the announcement of Montini’s 

election to the Pontificate, said: 

“Here is our man!”» 

2) The “obituary”, or funeral oration, 

the former Grand Master of 

Palazzo Giustiniani, Giordano Gamberini, 

made of Paul VI on the “Rivista 

Massonica” Magazine 3: «To us – 

it is read - it is the death of HE who 

made the condemnation of Clement 

XII and of his successors fall. That 

is, it is the first time – in the history 

of modern Freemasonry – that the 

Head of the greatest Western religion 

dies not in a state of hostility 

with the Freemasons». And he concludes: 

«For the first time in history, 

the Freemasons can pay respect to 

the tomb of a Pope, without ambiguities 

or contradiction» 4. 

3) In a private letter, written by a 

Freemason friend of the renown 

French writer, Count Lion de 

Poncins, expert in Masonic issues, the 

following passage appears, «… With 

Pius X and Pius XII, we Freemasons 

could do very little, but, ‘avec Paul 

VI, nous avons vencu.’ (With Paul 

VI we won’)». 

117-155. 

3 “La Rivista Massonica”, n. 5, July 1978, 

p. 290. 

4 “La Rivista Massonica”, ed., p. 290. 

313

4) Under his Pontificate, “Masonic 

laws” were introduced in Italy, such as 

divorce, abortion, and separation between 

Church and State. And there 

was a thorough penetration of 

Freemasonry even into the ordinary 

ecclesiastical structures. 

5) On November 13, 1964, Paul VI 

laid down the “Tiara” (the “triregno”) 

on the altar, definitively renouncing 

it. A gesture that was the objective 

of the “French Revolution”. The 

French Freemason Albert Pike wrote: 

«The inspirers, the philosophers, 

and the historical leaders of the 

French Revolutions had sworn to 

overthrow the “CROWN” and the 

“TIARA” on the tomb of Jacques de 

Molay» 5. 

6) During his trip to the Holy Land (in 

1954) on the Mount of Olives, at 

Jerusalem, Paul VI embraced the Orthodox 

Patriarch Athenagoras I, 

Freemason of the 33d degree. Then, 

on the eve of the closing of Vatican 

II, the pair lifted the mutual “excommunications” 

launched in 1054. 

7) On March 23, 1966, he put on the 

finger of Dr. Ramsey, secular and 

Freemason, Anglican archbishop of 

Canterbury, his “new conciliar ring” 

and then imparted, together with 

him, the “blessing” to those present. 

8) With Paul VI, through Cardinal 

Bea, the Freemasons managed to obtain, 

at the Council, the “Decree” on 

“Religious Freedom”, in order to 

achieve the so much yearned-for realization 

of a “universal religion”, then 

set off with the contracting syncretisti- 

5 Albert Pike, “Morals and Dogma”, vol. 

II, p. 156. 

6 Epiphanius, “Freemasonry and Secret 

314 

cally, of the “Ecumenical Movement” 

of Assisi. And while Paul VI always 

refused to receive the Catholics of 

Tradition, he continually welcomed, 

on the other hand, the members of the 

Masonic Lodges, such as, for example, 

those of the High Jewish Freemasonry 

of the “B’nai-Brith” and those of 

“L’Alliance Israélite Universelle”, 

which aims at achieving the union of 

all religions into one. 

9) His identity of views with the “Masonic 

scheme” can also be observed in 

the identity of his programs with the 

Masonic schemes of the UN, and of 

UNESCO. I would have one read, for 

example, his encyclical “Populorum 

Progressio”, in which Paul VI speaks 

of a “world bank” backed by a 

“world Government”, which would 

be ruling thanks to a “synthetic and 

universal religion”. 

10) In his address to the UN of October 

4, 1965, Paul VI uttered unusual 

and astonishing declarations, such as 

the following: 

«(…) We presume to say (the UN) is 

the reflection of the loving and transcendent 

design of God for the 

progress of the human family on 

earth, a reflection in which we see 

the heavenly message of the Gospel 

(…)» 

Before he pronounced his humanist address 

in front of the General Assembly 

of the UN, Paul VI had stepped into 

the “Meditation Room”, the Masonic 

sanctuary, at the center of which 

stands “an altar for a faceless God”, 

which the Secretary General of the UN, 

Dag Hammarskjöld, had described as 

an altar to the Universal Religion 6. 

Sects: The Occult face of History”, Editrice 

Ichtys, Rome, p. 429.

This photograph depicts a ceremony of great symbolic importance: Paul VI deposes, 

finally, the tiara on the altar. It is the major objective of the French 

Revolution, implemented by the hands of him who sat on the throne of Peter, a 

most important result of the beheading of Louis XVI, and also of “breach 

of Porta Pia”. 

We recall the words of the Pontiff of Universal Freemasonry, Albert Pike: «The 

inspiration, the philosophers and the historical leaders of the French Revolution 

had sworn to overthrow the crown and tiara on the tomb of Jacques 

de Molay (...) When Louis XVI was executed, half the work was done, and 

since then the Army of the Temple was to direct all its efforts against the Papacy». 

(Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma, vol. VI, p. 156). 

315

Moreover, Paul VI should have 

known that the UN, at its highest 

levels, is directed by a Satanic sect, 

the “Lucifer Trust” (renamed “Lucis 

Trust”), which is the real spiritual 

brain of the UN and UNESCO, whose 

founder had for an objective «to wipe 

our Christianity from the face of the 

earth», and «throw out God from the 

heavens». 

11) A head of Freemasonry, Minister 

of State of the Supreme Council of the 

Scottish Rite in France, Mr. 

Marsaudon, in his book: “Ecumenism 

From the Perspective of a 

Freemason of Tradition”, speaking of 

all Pope Montini had done, wrote: «… 

The Christians should not forget 

that all avenues (all religions) lead to 

God, and stay within this brave notion 

of freedom of thought. One 

could really speak of a Revolution 

that from our Masonic Lodges has 

spread out magnificently, reaching 

the top of St. Peter’s Basilica». 

12) Finally, his “Liturgical Reform” 

had been foreseen by the Freemason 

and apostate Roca, in 1883: “The divine 

cult –Roca wrote – in an Ecumenical 

Council shall undergo a 

transformation that will put it in 

harmony with the state of modern 

civilization” 7. Roca’s plan for the introduction 

of Christianity into the Masonic 

“Universal Religion”, provided 

for: 

a) A doctrinal adaptation, which presupposed 

the equivalence of all cults 

and religious views; 

b) New Dogmas, primarily that of 

Evolution, which presupposes Gnostic 

Pantheism and Integral Human- 

7 Pierre Virion, “Mystère d’Iniquité”, ed. 

Saint-Michel, 1967, p. 21-43. 

8 Raimondo Spiazzi, “Cardinal Siri Arch- 

316 

ism, for the passage of the mission of 

the Church from the mystical and 

sacramental (supernatural) sphere to 

the political-social (natural) one; 

c) A rapprochement with Freemasonry; 

d) The birth of the “priests of the future”, 

whom are to involve themselves 

with the “social” and abandon 

the “supernatural”. 

And so on along this line. 

And thus Freemasonry, with Paul 

VI, had not only penetrated the 

grass-root Church, but also the echelon 

of the Vatican, both with clerics 

and secular. And that is conceded at 

the highest levels, too 8. It is sufficient 

to read Chapter IV (“His Opening to 

Freemasonry”) of our book, “Paul 

VI… beatified?” to realize this fact. 

*** 

To conclude: who was, then, Paul VI? 

It will suffice to recall that Paul VI had 

been opposed to Pius XII’s “politicalreligious 

line” with his own “politicalsecular 

line”, through which he, “Pro- 

Secretary of State”, betrayed Pius 

XII, setting up “secret channels” with 

Moscow and other Communist Heads 

of State, forgetful of, or in contempt of 

what Pius XI had written in his Encyclical 

“Divini Redemptoris Promissio” 

(1937) against Communism, clearly 

branding it as “intrinsically perverted” 

and as a “tragedy to humanity”. 

But now, Paul VI’s “betrayal” stands 

before the tribunal of History. 

bishop of Genoa From 1946 To 1987”, 

Bologna 1990.


317


317

318 

WARNINGS FROM 

OUR LADY 

Our Lady, Mother of God, our Mother 

and Mother of the Church in recent 

centuries, has given us warnings on the 

tremendous crisis that the Church 

would suffer from the mid-Twentieth 

Century and beyond. 

She uses words that are precise and unambiguous, 

though tragic and terrible 

in its contents. 

In her appearance at La Salette, Our 

Lady was displeased with the conduct 

of the Ministers of God for their “evil 

life” for their “love of money, honors 

and pleasures”, but most especially 

for their “irreverence and impiety in 

celebrating the Holy Mysteries”. 

She already knows the reality of the 

betrayal of so many ministers of God 

who, having thrown themselves into 

the arms of the infamous Sect of 

Freemasonry, do not worship the true 

God, but worship only themselves: 

“Tremble… you who proclaim to 

worship Jesus Christ, but on the inside, 

worship only yourself ...”. 

She also knows that this betrayal will 

destroy the Faith in Rome and the 

Church: “Rome will lose the Faith and 

become the seat of the Antichrist!… 

The Church will be eclipsed”. 

And She does not ignore the fact that 

the Beast and his subjects, proclaiming 

themselves saviors of the world, 

and shall deceive many, will attempt to 

rise to the heavens, until they will be 

thrown forever into the depths of hell! 

In her apparitions of Fatima, Our Lady 

confirmed what she had said at La 

Salette, and the punishment that will 

fall on the entire human race “within 

the second half of the Twentieth Century”; 

both tell of the “horrible crisis” 

in which the Catholic Church will 

plunge. 

She tells us that Satan will march 

amidst the rows of Cardinals and Bishops 

and, in Rome, there will be great 

changes, that Satan will reign in the 

highest places and will even infiltrate 

to the top of the Church! 

But She also predicts that the rot in 

Rome will fall and never rise again! 

But in the meantime, the Church will 

be obscured and the world deranged by 

terror, will be taken in by errors made 

by the partisans of Satan, who for a 

while, will be able to reign over the 

world, until God will again be proclaimed 

and served as before. 

There were, however, Apparitions (to 

Mother Mariana in Quito, from 1582 

to 1634) in which the Virgin Mary, invoked 

under the name of Our Lady of 

Good Success, explicitly condemns 

Freemasonry using terms such as “the 

cursed sect of Freemasonry,” “Satan 

will reign completely through the 

Masonic sects,” “the terrible hordes 

of the Masonic sect”... which leave no 

doubt about the main cause of the 

“horrible crisis” facing the Church today, 

and Her new… Masonic course!

OUR LADY OF GOOD SUCCESS 

Since the year 1582, Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres received 

many apparitions of the Most Blessed Trinity, Jesus and Mary 

in the Convent of the Immaculate Conception of Quito 

(Ecuador), until the final apparition which took place on December 

8, 1634. 

In these apparitions, Our Lady, who asked to be invoked under 

the title of Our Lady of Good Success, and Jesus revealed to 

Mother Mariana several messages referring to the period of the 

second half of the Twentieth Century. 

During this period, the Church would suffer persecution in part 

by Freemasonry and a horrible notorious internal crisis caused 

by the betrayal of many ministers of God, who “would join the 

party of Satan, by becoming members of Masonic Lodges”. 

Our Lady showed to Mother Mariana the state of devastation 

of the Church “from the mid-Twentieth Century and beyond” 

as a punishment from God the Father for the corruption of humanity! 

319

320 

«Shortly after the mid-Twentieth Century, 

the passions will erupt 

and there will be a total corruption of customs 

for Satan will reign almost completely 

by means of the Masonic sect». 

*** 

«The Sacrament of Matrimony, 

which symbolizes the union 

of Christ with His Church, 

will be attacked and deeply profaned. 

Freemasonry, which will then in power, 

will approve iniquitous laws with the aim of 

doing away with this Sacrament». 

«Moreover, in these unhappy times, 

there will be unbridled lust ... 

Innocence will almost no longer 

be found in children 

nor modesty in women. 

In this supreme moment of need of the Church, 

that one who should speak 

will fall silent». 

*** 

«During this epoch, 

the Church will find Herself attacked 

by terrible hordes of the Masonic sect ... 

The vices of impurity, of blasphemy and sacrilege 

will dominate, 

in these times of depraved desolation 

and that one who should speak 

will fall silent».

«The fury of the devil, in trying to raze 

the Catholic Church, 

would be served by Her children who 

would lose their faith. 

They would work to oppress 

the Church, and prevent 

public devotion for they would have already 

entered the party of Satan, by becoming 

members of Masonic Lodges... 

and the loathsome and pestiferous wild boar 

of Freemasonry would enter the beautiful 

and flourishing vineyard of the Church, 

leaving it in complete ruins and destroyed». 

*** 

«The Masonic Sect will be so subtle 

as to penetrate into the heart of families 

in order to corrupt the children, 

and the Devil will pride himself in dining 

upon the exquisite delicacy of 

the hearts of children». 

*** 

«Know that the Divine Justice sends 

terrible punishments on entire nations, 

not only for the sins of the people, 

but above all for the sins of 

Priests and Religious... 

Deviating from their sublime mission 

they will deteriorate to the point where 

that, in the eyes of God, they are the ones to 

accelerate the severity of punishment». 

321

322 

Our Lady of La Salette 

On September 19, 1846, on the Mountain of La Salette, Our 

Lady appeared to Melanie and Maximin and gave them a Message 

that was later recognized by the Church, but a diabolical 

plot has continuously and deliberately mutilated and silenced it. 

In this long message, Our Lady spoke these words: 

«The priests, ministers of My Son 

for their evil life, for their irreverence 

and their impiety in celebrating 

the Holy Mysteries, 

for the love of money, honors and pleasures, 

the priests have become 

cesspools of impurity. 

Yes, the priests ask for their revenge 

and revenge is suspended over their heads».

«Woe to the Princes of the Church 

who think only of piling riches, to protect their 

authority and dominate with pride». 

«The Church will be abandoned to great persecutions, 

that one will be the time of darkness, 

and the Church will have a horrible crisis…». 

*** 

«Tremble, earth, and you who proclaim yourselves 

to worship Jesus Christ, but, on the inside, 

only worship yourselves, tremble, 

for God will hand you over to His enemy 

because the holy places 

are in the state of corruption...». 

«ROME WILL LOSE THE FAITH 

AND BECOME 

THE SEAT OF THE ANTICHRIST!». 

«The Church will be eclipsed...». 

*** 

«It’s time. The sun is darkening, 

Faith alone will survive! 

Now is the time, the abyss is opening. 

Here is the king of darkness, 

here is the Beast with his subjects, 

calling himself the Savior of the world. 

He will rise proudly into the air 

to go up to Heaven..». 

«Then water and fire will purge the earth 

and will consume all the works 

of men’s pride and all will be renewed: 

God will be served and glorified». 

323

324 

Our Lady of Fatima 

On October 13 th, 1917, after a series of apparitions, Our Lady 

appears for the last time to the children of Fatima: Lucia, 

Jacinta and Francisco. After the advent of the “Miracle of the 

Sun”, the Mother of God revealed a special Message to Lucy 

(also known as the “Third Secret of Fatima”) which, among 

other things she said: 

«A great chastisement will fall on the entire 

human race; not today, not tomorrow, 

but in the second half of the Twentieth Century». 

*** 

«No longer does order reign anywhere. 

and Satan will reign over the highest places 

and directs the course of events. 

He (Satan) really will succeed in infiltrating 

to the top of the Church».

«Also for the Church a time of Her 

greatest trials will come. 

Cardinals will oppose Cardinals 

Bishops will oppose Bishops. 

and Satan will march amid their ranks, 

and in Rome great changes will occur. 

What is rotten will fall, 

and what will falls will never rise again. 

The Church will be darkened, 

and the world will be deranged by terror». 

*** 

«A great war will break out 

within the second half of the Twentieth Century. 

Fire and smoke will fall from Heaven… 

the foam of the the oceans will rise up 

all overturning and sinking. 

Millions and millions of people will die by the hour 

And the survivors will envy the dead». 

*** 

«Death will reign everywhere 

for the errors, committed by the foolish 

and by the partisans of Satan, 

who, then and only then, will reign over the world». 

*** 

«At last, those who will survive all of these events 

will once more proclaim God and His Glory 

and will serve Him like before, 

when the world was not so corrupted». 

325

Index 

page 

Preface 7 

Prologue 13 

Chapter I His “New Religion” 27 

Chapter II His “Opening to the World” 59 

Chapter III His “Opening to Modernism” 93 

Chapter IV His “Opening to Freemasonry” 115 

Chapter V His “Opening to Universal Democracy” 157 

Chapter VI His “Tolerance and Complicity” 179 

Chapter VII His “Opening to Communism” 203 

Chapter VIII His “Ecumenical Mass” 241 

Appendix 1 The “Oath” On the Day of His Coronation 281 

Appendix 2 “Five-Pointed-Star”: 

“Signature” of Paul VI’s Pontificate 286 

Appendix 3 Warnings from Our Lady 318

The coffin of Paul VI. 

The Pope, in his will, had expressed his desire that His coffin 

was to be placed on the bare ground and placed on it, opened, 

the book of the Gospels. (But why not the Cross?) 

$ 25.00

sac. Luigi Villa PAUL VI beatified? - Chiesa viva

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?