Since faith is one, it must be professed in all its purity and integrity". Pope Francis/Pope Benedict
email:torontocatholicwitness@rogers.com

Monday, 16 April 2018

Vatican shuts down Jewish priest's Order in Belgium



Fr. Michel Marie Zanotti Sorkine a French priest, who is also Jewish, is an extraordinary man. Inspired by Christ, this modern-day St. Paul served the faithful and all who would approach him in Marseilles.  I first came across Fr. Sorkine a number of years ago, reading about his incredible pastoral activities in a local Catholic journal, The Michael. What struck me was how Fr. Sorkine walked the streets of Marseilles in his cassock, the door of his rectory open every night until eleven. "Office hours", so prevalent amongst lukewarm priests after the Second Vatican Council, was not for Fr. Sorkine. Like his Jewish forebear, St. Paul, he portrayed that tenacity that had a messianic streak of the once chosen people.

Fr. Sorkine even established the Priestly Society of the Holy Apostles. His Society soon made its way to Belgium, at the invitation of Archbishop Leonard. Sadly, the ultra-modernist Cardinal Danneels (also publicly known for his fraternization with Freemasons) set his sights on destroying the Jewish priest's little Society. The new Archbishop, neo-modernist, De Kesel expelled the Society, whilst setting up an Islamic prayer centre at Catholic (??) schools. The Society, has finally been demolished by ultra neo-modernists in Rome: the executioners, Cardinal Beniamino Stella and Msgr. Domenico Mamberti. In late 2017, Stella obtained a decree of dissolution from the Pope. 

Read the full story here.   

Whatever you do, dear friends, stay with the Church during this very dark hour of error, confusion, evil and betrayal. Stay with the Church as She is scourged and crucified by the leaders of the Church, just as Christ was scourged and crucified by the leaders of the one, true religion of His time. Do not wander off to some schismatic Synagogue of Satan. There is one Church and She is the one, and only Mystical Body of Christ. Stay by the side of your Mother, the Church. Love her, stay with her, be Loyal to her and run the good race to your eternal salvation. 

Sunday, 15 April 2018

The Temptation to Schism




In 1969, the Abbe Georges de Nantes warned against the grave danger of the temptation to schism, as he had a number of times during the turbulence  during and following the Council. Since the Abbe's warning in 1969, the confusion, the errors, the heresies, the liberalism (modernist and integrist) has only increased in the Church. On the one hand, we have the modernists seeking to undermine and overthrow the doctrines of the Church; sadly, on the other hand we have schismatic integrists who seek to throw off the visible, hierarchical structure of the Church, emancipating themselves from Her authority and jurisdiction, but in the process establishing yet another sect which God does not recognize, nor honour. 


The Abbe wrote: 

“ May Catholic charity always triumph in our hearts  ! One does not answer schism by schism. In the face of ill-feeling, partiality and hatred which raise barriers and trenches, our only answer must be that of love, that love which is founded on the infrangible community of the sacramental life. The Church is the charity of Christ spread and communicated amongst all the brothers. Whilst our brothers maintain albeit only the appearance of belonging to the Church, we must hold and retain them in Catholic charity without accepting their ostracism and their scission, and without adding our own thereto. If we quit the community, if we emancipate ourselves from hierarchical authority and reject its jurisdiction, we reinforce the schism, we provide it with the homogeneous consistency of a sect, and we give it a free hand in the Church  ! We must stay put, resigned to being punished, to suffering and to obeying whatever is not forbidden or intolerable, as martyrs for Catholic Unity and Charity… We must reject everything that is commanded for the purpose of subversion and not let ourselves be penalised without protesting. But never, never ever, will we contest the unique inviolable power of jurisdiction that belongs to the Pope and to the bishops united to him. Even though they behave unjustly, it is they who are the Catholic hierarchy, not ourselves.

“ One cannot save the Church by building on other foundations. But some people wanted to persuade me to do just that. As someone unjustly (although legally) deprived of all power of jurisdiction over souls by a Pope and bishops suspected of schism and heresy, I was supposed to consider myself a victim of persecution and to attribute to myself some kind of extraordinary jurisdiction directly derived from God  ! The determining factor was meant to be the pressing necessity of souls who were in danger of perishing in a Church that had completely lost her direction. Well, my answer to this was  : never, not at any price. Such jurisdiction has never been recognised by the holy canons except in the case of bishops in countries where persecution has totally destroyed or paralysed the local hierarchy. Presuming on the assent of the Holy See, these bishops would exercise this kind of extraordinary jurisdiction to save these Churches from total ruin and to provide for the urgent necessities of souls (Dom Gréa, L’Église, p. 235-238). As none of this can be verified in my own case, the usurpation that is proposed to me would be invalid, criminal and strictly schismatic.

“ We are not the saviours of the Church. Rather it is she, both now and always, who is our salvation. I may not actually see this, but I believe it with an unwavering faith  : the salvation of the Church today, as yesterday and for all times, is to be found in her Pastors. Although temporarily sunk in the error and sectarianism of their Reform, this grace still subsists in them, indefectibly. It may not be apparent, but it is ready on the day appointed by God to spring forth again for the salvation of all. The disorder may be great, the damage to souls mortal, but God does not wish to govern us except through the hierarchy. In such a sacred matter He cannot tolerate any fraudulent usurpation. If we were foolish enough to imagine that we could save the Church by carrying her off with us into the escapade of yet another schism, we who are nothing, it is we and we alone who would be irremediably lost. The only life we have within us is that which we have received. It is from the Roman Rock alone that this life springs forth.

“ The Church does not lie within us. It subsists in those very men whom we see busying themselves in her ruin and whom we nevertheless believe, by virtue of their apostolic jurisdiction, to be the bearers of Christ’s grace. We ourselves have no share in their powers of order and ministry except in the exact extent to which they delegate it to us. Thus, I am recognised as having the power to celebrate the Holy Mass, and this would be the case even if I were to be punished by an unjust excommunication (which God forbid  !), provided that I then celebrate it in private and without the risk of scandal. I also retain the power to give absolution to those who are dying… I give thanks to the Church for these faculties which she allows me to keep. I make use of them and I will continue to do so. But to go beyond this would be to build a simulacrum of the Church outside the Church. Good heavens  ! What would be the point  ? To deceive myself into thinking that I could save everyone  ? Ah, no  ! When the schism of this Reform is over, I do not wish to be separated from the Church. ”

Catholic and Orthodox Patriarchs issue Statement condemning Attack on Syria

The following is a Formal Statement issued by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches in Syria, following the attack by the United States, the United Kingdom and France on Syria. 




I advise Catholics and all men and women of good will to study and pray over this document. It is not "my country right or wrong". That idea is false and not Catholic. My mother was a British Patriot who loved her country. Had she been here, she too, as I do now, denounce the United Kingdom in the strongest possible terms for participating in this vile attack, as a pawn of international Zionism-Freemasonry, who are the real puppet masters in London, Washington and Paris. 

The hatred, the rage that is being directed towards Russia needs to be explained. That nation has made many mistakes and is not perfect: but one thing is certain, the Orthodox Church is increasing in power and the Russian State is defending and advancing the Orthodox Church. The traditional enemies of Our Lord Jesus Christ hate this. 

Let there be no mistake: Our Lord has real enemies who hate Him and wish to wipe His Name off the face of the earth and destroy His Church. Politics ultimately always comes down to religion. To believe the contrary is blindness and foolishness. Americans and Frenchmen and women: pray and decide. 

Saturday, 14 April 2018

Pope Francis CANNOT lose "his Office" [UPDATE]



Over the past few days there have been reports of an historian speculating that Pope Francis can "lose his office", (but not be "deposed"), after he has been found "guilty" of "manifest" heresy. In other words he would materially cease to be pope, but not formally. 

Who would declare the Pope has lost his "office", and by what authority?

Who would decide what "manifest heresy" is, and by what authority? 

I refer readers to an article written a number of years ago by Br. Andre Marie, in which he wrote the following: 


Regarding the possibility of an heretical pope and his consequent loss of office, I would like to present another argument. Supposing we were to follow the opinions of certain authors that if a pope were to fall into heresy, he would then lose his office. Then suppose that we were to apply that opinion to a certain pope. At best, what we have accomplished is to establish, based upon theological speculation, the possibility that the See of Peter could be vacant. That is all we could do, given the uncertain nature of this situation. At this point, the individual Catholic is at a moral juncture: Either accept a man as the Roman Pontiff whom he thinks might not be pope, or reject him. If he realizes that the claimant to the Apostolic See might be the pope — and he has to admit that he might be — then rejecting the claimant constitutes a schismatic act. 

Let me explain. This is what is known in moral theology as a “practical doubt.” About this “practical doubt” the Jesuit moralist, Father Slater, says the following. “If I eat meat with a practical doubt as to whether it is not forbidden on that day by the Church, I commit a sin of the same kind and malice as if I ate meat knowingly on a day of abstinence.” Apply this to the pontificate. If I refuse my subjection to the Roman Pontiff with a practical doubt as to whether or not he is the pope, I commit an act of schism. It’s a form of spiritual Russian Roulette.


[UPDATE: Sunday, April 15, 2018: 9:05 a.m.]


For those  who have succumbed to sedevacantism, I again refer you to Br. Andre Marie:


“Yes, and we all know what our Lord did. He deposed the high priest and declared the Seat of Moses vacant! Didn’t He?” The point is simply this: If the Man-God himself had enough respect for the sovereign pontiff of the law of types and figures as to say of the heretical Jew who was soon to murder Him, that he sat “in the seat of Moses,” how does anyone in the present law, the more perfect law, dare to do the opposite? 
Let me spell this out. Our Lord was not a sedevacantist. The evil deicide heretic who had authority over the “church” of Israel, was still the head of the true Religion. 
The religious society of the Old Law was still intact. Anyone wishing to save his soul could look to this office for leadership. Its sacrifices were accepted by God, and despite the abusive use to which it was put, the prophetical office was even maintained by this man. What did St. John say about Caiphas’ prophesy of our Lord’s death? “And this he spoke not of himself: but being the high priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation.” No matter how you view it, the present Pope’s actions come nowhere near the iniquity of Caiphas.


Thursday, 12 April 2018

Pope Francis: the question of Papal Heresy and the temptation to Schism



I have been warning readers of the temptation to schismatic dissidence for some time now. As the crisis in the Church increases, so too will the temptation to schism and heresy. I, for one, will not be leaving the Church, and wander off to some Synagogue of Satan. Nor do I intend to leave the Church in my heart. Do you realize, dear friend, what a grave mortal sin it is to deny that Pope Francis is Pope, yet attend a Mass that prays for him in the Canon, as Pope? 

The Church is visible, is She not? 

The Church is hierarchical, is She not? 

We have a Pope, do we not? 

The Church, though gravely ill, will not die. The Church needs Catholics by Her bedside, caring for Her, though Her injuries are heavy, grotesque; Her body covered with open sores. It is now, more than ever, that we should be caring lovingly for Our Mother. 

The Church is sustained by Christ and Our Lord is far, far more powerful than popes, who come and go. Have we ever considered that God knows exactly what He is doing? 

Now, there have been claims that Pope Francis cannot be "deposed", but rather, "lose his Office"! He would, according to this fantastical theory that tries to square a circle, remain Pope until his "heresy has become manifest" in this delusion. 

Manifest to whom? 

Who will judge what is "manifest"? 


From where will these self-appointed judges receive their authority?


This is a fine work of schism. If he has lost office, he can hardly be the Pope. Let us not quibble over semantics! What this is, is a mental exercise in denying the Pope in praxis, but not in theory. 

I am no theologian. Therefore, I shall refer to a theologian: the Abbe de Nantes. The Abbe himself wrote once that a Catholic has a thousand reasons more to follow the Pope than the opinion of a priest. Therefore, in this humble opinion of this priest let us review the possibility that the "Church" (??) can declare the Supreme Pontiff, "deposed". The Abbe certainly was prescient in his belief that this will cause grave confusion. 

" Papa hæreticus depositus est… A heretical Pope is deposed. ” This is the solution advocated by Robert Bellarmine in the heyday of the Counter-Reformation. “ Heresy being a form of spiritual death, a withdrawal from the Church, any Pope who should fall into heresy, would find himself ipso facto cut off from the Church. He is, by this very fact, deposed. He ceases to occupy the Apostolic See of his own accord. ” This theory was well adapted to an epoch when everyone clearly distinguished the Catholic Faith from error.
 What neither Suarez nor Bellarmine could have foreseen, is that a time would come when evolutionism and subjectivism would spread such darkness in people’s minds that it would be impossible for them to immediately identify heresy, particularly in the private doctrines of a pope. Given the current confusion, in which Protestant private judgement is further complicated by Modernist immanentism, if we were to accept this solution, anyone might declare the Pope a heretic according to his own private whim and conclude that, as far as his own direction was concerned, there was no longer any pope. ” (CRC no. 30, March 1970, p. 7) Thus, the theologian of the Catholic Counter-Reformation was of the opinion that this solution would be impracticable as it would have no effect other than to cause confusion and lead to contesting any Pope whoever he might be.
“ Papa haereticus deponendus est, a heretical Pope must be deposed. ” This is the solution proposed by Cardinal Cajetan and other theologians. It implies two important consequences. “ If it so happens that a Pope is a heretic, he must be deposed for him to cease being the Pope. Furthermore, the person who accuses the Pope of heresy must not leave it at that, but must ask for the legal process for his deposition to be undertaken, since he cannot make a universally and immediately executory decision of his personal judgement. ” (CRC no. 69, June 1973, p. 10)
This is a wise solution, yet it raises further questions, in particular, who will judge the Pope  ? Cajetan’s answer is unsatisfactory. He maintains that in undertaking such a process of deposition of a heretical Pope, the Church is not in fact passing a verdict on the offender, but is merely bringing him to the attention of the Sovereign Judge Who is God Himself. “ It is hard to see just what Cajetan had in mind, ” Fr. de Nantes comments. “ He is in an obvious dilemma. We are left only with the idea that any ecclesiastical tribunal in such a trial would be competent merely to institute proceedings, but not to pass sentence. "

Sunday, 8 April 2018

Pope Benedict XVI: "Those Sacred Wounds..." are the source of Divine Mercy



BENEDICT XVI
REGINA CÆLI

II Sunday of Easter, 23 April 2006

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

This Sunday the Gospel of John tells us that the Risen Jesus appeared to the disciples, enclosed in the Upper Room, on the evening of the "first day of the week" (Jn 20: 19), and that he showed himself to them once again in the same place "eight days later" (Jn 20: 26). From the beginning, therefore, the Christian community began to live a weekly rhythm, marked by the meeting with the Risen Lord.

This is something that the Constitution on the Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council also emphasizes, saying: "By a tradition handed down from the Apostles, which took its origin from the very day of Christ's Resurrection, the Church celebrates the Paschal Mystery every seventh day, which day is appropriately called the Lord's Day" (Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 106).

The Evangelist further recalls that on the occasion of both his appearances - the day of the Resurrection and eight days later - the Lord Jesus showed the disciples the signs of the crucifixion, clearly visible and tangible even in his glorified Body (cf. Jn 20: 20, 27).

Those sacred wounds in his hands, in his feet and in his side, are an inexhaustible source of faith, hope and love from which each one can draw, especially the souls who thirst the most for divine mercy.

In consideration of this, the Servant of God John Paul II, highlighting the spiritual experience of a humble Sister, St Faustina Kowalska, desired that the Sunday after Easter be dedicated in a special way to Divine Mercy; and Providence disposed that he would die precisely on the eve of this day in the hands of Divine Mercy.


The mystery of God's merciful love was the centre of the Pontificate of my venerable Predecessor. Let us remember in particular his 1980 Encyclical Dives in Misericordia, and his dedication of the new Shrine of Divine Mercy in Krakow in 2002. The words he spoke on the latter occasion summed up, as it were, his Magisterium, pointing out that the cult of Divine Mercy is not a secondary devotion but an integral dimension of Christian faith and prayer.

May Mary Most Holy, Mother of the Church, whom we now address with the Regina Caeli, obtain for all Christians that they live Sunday to the full as "the Easter of the week", tasting the beauty of the encounter with the Risen Lord and drawing from the source of his merciful love to be apostles of his peace.

Saturday, 7 April 2018

Jesus Christ is the King of the Jews



And Pilate wrote a title also, and he put it upon the cross. 
And the writing was: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. 
John 19:19


Any mention that contemporary Judaism is not biblical Judaism, but Talmudic Judaism, is met with immediate accusations of "antisemitism". Church Fathers, saints - up to and including St. Maximillian Kolbe - have all been smeared with "anti-semitism".  St. John and St. Paul have been singled out as two leading "antisemites". 

To preach the Gospel to the Jews, that they convert from their current spritual blindness, evokes cries of "antisemitism", but it must be done. St. Peter (a Jew, and the first pope) preached Our Lord before a large crowd of Jews: the results were a mass conversion. According to contemporary relativistic thinking, where truth does not matter, where it does not matter if Jesus Christ is God or not God, where falsehood and error are irrelevant, St. Peter's preaching was a manifestation of "anti-semitism". In fact, since truth does not exist for the modern mind, St. Peter's preaching is incomprehensible. Is it any wonder why Our Lord's Crucifixion has become irrelevant? After all, if there is no truth, He died for nothing. 

The conversion of the Jews should weigh especially heavily on our hearts and minds, during Easter Week, following their tragic rejection of Our Lord during Holy Week. Having been awaiting the Messiah, when He came, they not only "knew Him not", but rejected Him and arranged for the Romans to crucify Him. The High Priests and the vast majority of the Sanhedrin condemned Jesus and killed the Messiah. Not to preach Christ Crucified to the Jews is a grave evil. It is a direct act of disobedience to Our Lord, who commanded His Church to go "out to all Nations, teaching them all that I have commanded you". 


Christiana Polonia carries an excellent article on the relationship between the Catholic Church and Rabinical Judaism.


The Church doesn’t come from rabbis but from Moses and the prophets. It is Catholicism that is a perfect continuation of the ancient Israelites’ faith.The beginnings of Judaism go back to the patriarch Abraham. At the beginning of the second millennium B.C. he wandered from Mesopotamia to Kanaan by the Mediterranean Sea. His descendants lived in Egypt though, where pharaohs reduced them to being slaves. Then, in the 13th century B.C. their 40-year-long journey back to Kanaan led by Moses began. It was then that God revealed the Decalogue on the Sinai Mountain to him. In the 10th century B.C. or so biblical Judaism concentrated around the Temple of Jerusalem holding the Ark of the Covenant was developed. Judaist prophets defended their monistic faith against going down to Paganism. 

The destruction of the temple and the beginning of the Babylonian captivity in the 6th century B.C. led to the transformation of the religion which was now based mainly on the Law. In the 4th century B.C. Hellenistic Judaism was developed. Its followers performed their cult in the second rebuilt temple. When Jesus Christ was born some Jews recognised him as Messiah announced by Jewish prophets. Other Jews rejected Him. In the year 70 A.D. the Romans destroyed the second temple in Jerusalem. This was a turning point in the history of Judaism.

What could be done? The Torah experts, rabbis, gathered in the town of Yavne. They agreed on how they should function without a temple. So-called rabbinic Judaism was based on prayers in numerous synagogues rather than in one temple. The Talmud and the rabbis replaced religious animal sacrifice and priesthood. Between the 5th and 7th century Jews wrote the Talmud down. It consists of the Gemara, a rabbinic commentary on Mishnah (oral tradition codified around the year 200 A.D.) and Midrash, commentaries to the Torah.

As Reverend Waldemar Chrostowski pointed out, the centre of rabbinic Judaism is the Talmud and not the Old Testament. The Talmud plays the same role as the New Testament in Christianity. Moreover, as the reverend noted on some other occasion (“How to read the Holy Bible?” – a lecture from the “Spirituality for Warsaw" series, part 1 – 2017/2018 available on youtube.com), reading the Bible is different in the case of Christians and Jews. Christians read it in a Christological way. In the message of the Old Testament they see references to Christ.Thus, the New Testament complements the Old Testament. The rabbinic exegesis of the Bible leads to a different understanding of Messiah. It stops seeing an individual in Him. On the contrary, many contemporary rabbis consider the whole Israel to be Messiah. In this way Messiah becomes a collective entity.

Contemporary, meaning rabbinic, Jews follow (at least they should!) 613 commandments included in the Talmud. These are ethical and ceremonial indications (prayer three times a day, resting during the Sabbath), guidelines regarding the food (kosher) as well as holidays (Yom Kippur, Rosh Hashanah, Pesach, etc.).

The Catholic Church is younger than Judaism. No wonder. After all it comes from it (from biblical and not rabbinic Judaism!). It was founded on the Pentecost day in the 1st century when the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles. Soon afterwards, during the so-called Council of Jerusalem, the Apostles released Christians converted from Paganism from the obligation to follow the majority of regulations of the Law. Christianity started to separate itself as a religion different from Judaism. Other councils, such as the Council of Nicaea, when the Holy Trinity dogma was announced, contribute to that. A fundamental, although not indiscriminate, acceptance for the classic civilisation (Greco-Roman) is not without significance.

As can be seen, the Church and Judaism has the mutual heritage in common: the Old Testament (the Torah for Jews), monotheism as well as the esteem for Jewish prophets and law-makers. It is Abraham, Moses and the prophets as well as other people who are Catholics’ older brothers in faith. Moreover, since Christ is a Jew as concerning the flesh (Romans 9,5) the attempt to marry Christianity with antisemitism is not only a moral evil but also a logical contradiction. Moreover, as Reverend Waldemar Chrostowski pointed out during the “Opinion Leaders Academy” in 2014 (youtube.com), Catholicism (and Orthodox Church) continues the spirit of the Old Testament religion (priesthood, temple, sacrifice).

Meanwhile, some contemporary theologians, influenced by the so-called post-Auschwitz theology, mistakenly identify biblical Judaism with rabbinic Judaism. If, as they reason, both are “Judaism”, many are misled and consider them one religion. Meanwhile, the opposites are important. We should not underestimate them.

The first difference between Catholicism and rabbinic Judaism is the attitude towards Christ. According to the second religion, Jesus is a common man while the Church teaches that He is God, the second Person in the Holy Trinity. He is also Messiah promised by the prophets of the First Covenant who became human in order to redeem the world. Thus, Jews are still waiting for Messiah to come while the Church believes that it had already happened.

Moreover, while rabbinic Judaism is essentially limited to one nation, Christianity is universalistic. Therefore, any racism and national chauvinism (including antisemitism) argues with Christianism. As Saint Paul wrote: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ. There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for you all are one man in Christ Jesus.” (Ga 3;27-28). Although loyalty to the nation and the country is still valid (the fourth commandment), it is relativized. Love of one’s neighbour applies to everyone. 

Meanwhile, in rabbinic Judaism, as a state religion, nation remains something essential. It has an impact on ethics. According to Feliks Koneczny there are four ethics in rabbinic Judaism: for Jews and non-Jews in Palestine and for Jews and non-Jews in other parts of the world.


Read the full article here