Devil’s Advocate is the popular term given to the
Promoter of the Faith, an official of the Congregation of
Rites, whose business it is to scrupulously examine all
evidence, both of miracles and virtue, in the processes
of beatification and canonization, so that no person may,
through human enthusiasm or error, receive the highest honors
of the Church unless in every way worthy of them. Every
objection must be answered satisfactorily before the case
is allowed to proceed.
Milan, Italy, the diocesan stage of Paul VI's beatification
has reached its conclusion by attributing to Pope Montini
the title of "Prophet of the Council" (Avvenire,
Feb. 21, 1995). Just as they wished to show, the authorities
now want to canonize Paul VI, not because they believe in
his sanctity, but solely for the purpose of "canonizing"
Vatican Council II. Avvenire gives us the following
the devil's advocate remained idle throughout the proceedings:
as regards Paul VI's sanctity, there is not much to discuss….
ordinary people, he is called the "devil's advocate."
His official title, however, is the "Promoter of
the Faith." In processes of beatification, his task
is to check and doublecheck that everything be scrupulously
done according to Canon Law, so that any personal "sympathy"
toward the candidate for beatification not interfere with
the rigorous controls over his sanctity. This time, however,
the "devil's advocate" was left quite unoccupied:
there was general agreement on this very point [which,
however, did not authorize his remaining "inactive"
as he did]: it is quite difficult to discuss any aspect
of Paul VI's saintliness. He [the devil's advocate] however,
does not worry himself in the slightest degree over this.
"Quite the contrary," Dom Luigi Mistň explains,
"the fact of my remaining idle throughout the procedures
afforded me great pleasure indeed. One reason for this
lies in those happy memories which bind me to Paul VI..."
Paul VI's sanctity really "something that is so difficult
to discuss?" Yet, as Archbishop of Milan, Montini was
already to blame for some very foolish actions [not to mention
those committed behind the back of Pope Pius XII. See Courrier
de Rome, Apr., 1995.] For example, according to Von
Balthasar's testimony, while Archbishop of Milan, Montini
encouraged and upheld the "new theology," although
this error had already been solemnly condemned by Pope Pius
XII in his encyclical Humani Generis [cf. Urs von
Balthasar, La fonte del rinnovamento, (The Fount or Source
of Renewal), Jaca Book]; or again as Archbishop of Milan,
when he penned some prefaces for books authored by the most
scandalous of modernists, such as Suenens and Alfrink, who
later skillfully manipulated the Second Vatican Council
(1962-65) [cf. Eugenio Corli L'epoca di Paolo VI;
Solfanella Editor, Chieti]. Again, as Archbishop of Milan,
he frequently indulged in those unbefitting theatrics which
would still characterize him later on as Pope. For example:
through some imponderable humanist liberality, he prefaced
Mazzachelli's book on the Moniale de Monza (i.e.,
The Nun of Monza), only to find himself obliged to
withdraw his preface; or when at the velodrome he put
on a cyclist's crash helmet; or yet again when he addressed
factory workers in his own archdiocesan courtyard which
had been "decorated" with an arch featuring
a hammer and sickle.1
(Romano Amerio, published in SISINONO, Aug.
1987, under the title of Virtue of Humility or Humiliation
of the Church and of the Papacy?)
if the "devil's advocate," instead of wasting
away his precious time had proved himself to be conscientiously
faithful to his duty, he would certainly have unearthed
many other things in the actions and speeches of the one
who was at that time Cardinal Montini. But "from the
Vatican," we read on in Avvenire's article:
with the list of people to interrogate as well as the
questions to be put to them...there also arrived a pressing
invitation to do things well, but in all possible haste,
since the process of beatification of Paul VI is...one
of those which John Paul II has especially at heart.
are bizarre circumstances. It is the bounden duty under
grave obligation that the "Promoter of the Faith,"
makes sure that the personal sympathy toward the candidate
for beatification not interfere in any way nor diminish
nor weaken at all those rigorous controls over his [i.e.,
the candidate's] sanctity...
now appears, on the contrary, that the beatification process
has been carried away by the "sympathy" of the
devil's advocate for Pope Paul VI. What will be, will be.
In any case, the pope would certainly be the first saint
to be beatified with the full and easy endorsement of the
Translators note – the hammer and sickle: the emblem
of a sickle crossed by a hammer, adopted by the U.S.S.R.
for its Soviet flag in 1923 as a symbol of the unity of
interest and purpose of worker and peasant.
WORSHIP OF IDOLS
his recent pastoral visit to France, John Paul II said “We
have no other intention than to serve mankind in a spirit
of universal brotherhood.” This statement, which repeats
a concept expressed so often by the present pope, perfectly
summarizes the spirit that has animated the Catholic Church
since Vatican Council II: “to serve mankind.”
shouldn’t the Catholic Church founded by our Lord, serve
God first? And “to serve God” does not mean “to serve mankind.”
Is man to be served instead of God? By never speaking of
the service that it must render to God, but only of what
it wants to render to man, the Conciliar Church has put
man in the place of God, rendering to him divine honor.
only “service” the Church can render to man is to convert
him to the true Faith – or rather to Christ – for the salvation
of his soul. But of this service, however, it is no longer
spoken. The clergy have allowed themselves to be seduced
by a completely erroneous idea of man, since they no longer
concern themselves about his conversation and the salvation
of his soul. In fact, they no longer know how to recognize
sinners; from considering their simple “differences,” they
come to accept them in their “diversity”. Dialogue with
the erring, in order to lead them to repentance and conversion,
has become dialogue with error. It is simply prohibited
to speak of Original Sin and its consequences.
concept of a lay “universal brotherhood” – which is but
a myth derived from the French Revolution and a rancid substitute
for Christian charity – is the wide and broad way in which
the present hierarchy is so concerned to follow, anxious
as they are to earn the world’s applause. But they should
not preoccupy themselves with the world, but rather with
the Words of Christ, Who has commanded them to convert the
therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the Name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching
them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you…(Mt.
Church of today doesn’t want to remember this teaching any
longer, which expresses its very reason for being.
If it were remembered, the worship of man would no longer
be practiced. The Church would no longer bow before mankind,
whom it has the duty to convert, in order to draw him from
sin to eternal life.
these clergy do not repent, do not mend their ways, do not
change. God is punishing them for this, permitting a secular
humanism to run rampant inside the Church. It is this secular
humanism which corrupts vocations and the Faith, and which
demands, with growing arrogance, the final dissolution of
the Holy Catholic Church through the marriage of priests,
the institution of woman priests, and the annihilation of
what still remains under the authority of the Supreme Pontiff.
cult of man and of woman, professed with enthusiasm by the
priest hierarchy, is the worship of idols, of Isis and of
what happened to those who forgot the one and true God –
to Whom they owed everything – in order to worship idols?
you offer victims and sacrifices to me for forty years in
the desert, O house of Israel? And you took unto you the
tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Rempham,
figures which you made to adore them. And I will carry you
away beyond Babylon (Acts, 7:42-23).
in this hierarchy’s Church, in this desert of Faith, does
anyone remember this any longer?
SISINONO, Nov., 1996)
1 Osiris, an
Egyptian god, ruler of the underworld, and his nature-goddess
wife, Isis. Their cult gradually extended from Egypt throughout
the Roman Empire to become one of the chief religions. The
worship of Osiris and Isis resisted the rise of Christianity
and lasted until the sixth century AD.
INFIDELES (UNFAITHFUL FOREVER)
story appeared in the Italian newspaper Il Giornale,
Feb., 18, 1996:
have been excused or absolved yet once again. In the wake
of the French Church, the Portuguese Church has also declared
itself in favor of the protection of sex against AIDS.
“Dutch Church” followed suit:
stand taken by the Portuguese came barely 24 hours after
the public affirmations of a prince of the Church [i.e.,
a cardinal], the present Archbishop of Utrecht, Adrianus
Simonis, who, for the first time, has admitted the licit
or lawful nature of the use of protection against AIDS.
enough of this. So many “Churches”: “French,” “Portuguese,”
“Dutch”…instead of the one true Catholic Church in France,
in Portugal, in the Netherlands, etc., together with just
as many different “morals” (which are utterly immoral).
It is no longer a question of “death rather than sin,” but,
“sin, rather than death.”
is also noteworthy that Msgr. Simonis was considered to
be “conservative” in the ranks of the Dutch episcopacy.
If such be the case with a “conservative” bishop, we can
only imagine what it must be like with those “selling out”
the Faith to the enemy.
BETRAYAL, & ECUMENICAL COMPROMISE
letter addressed to SISINONO)
the occasion of Pope John Paul’s last voyage in
the Far East, and in the course of the choreographic
spectacle of Holy Mass, in the presence of one million
Philippine faithful, there was unfurled and held
on center stage, by five young “patriot” priests,
the red flag of that unspeakably vile Chinese Communist
regime universally well-known for its present persecution
of its own peaceful citizens. These young clerics
(if, indeed, they be truly such!) have simply shown
themselves to be traitors to the Faith by their
oath of fidelity to Mao’s doctrine as well as by
their repudiation of ecclesiastical unity with the
Roman Catholic Church. Surprise!
individuals were then welcomed and reinstated by
right in the Church and then admitted to concelebrate
with the Pope and the other priests who were also
taking part in that mammoth meeting.
with such a stupendous scandal, what will they say,
those courageous priests and religious who, in order
to remain faithful to Rome, have accepted imprisonment,
or condemnation to forced labor camps, or exile,
or even death itself at the hands of their Maoist
persecutors? Those true Catholics, who are indeed
the true Chinese patriots, must surely think that
they have been betrayed by the very one whose duty
it is, on the contrary, to praise and hold up as
an example those victims’ heroism. Today’s faithful
Chinese Catholics could not, of course, go to Manila,
seeing that they are forced to worship in the underground
Catholic Church at the cost of enormous sacrifices
and under the threat of never-ending dangers.
at the time of the French Revolution (1789-1799),
Pope Pius VI had also acted in this fashion with
those priests who, in order to save their lives
or to retain their freedom, recognized the “Civil
Constitution of the Clergy” by means of an oath
of loyalty to the rabidly anti-Catholic Jacobinical
government and by thus separating themselves from
Rome, would that have not constituted a solemn slap
in the face to the great number of loyal, recusant
priests who absolutely refused to utter that thereby
to exile or to certain death by the guillotine?
we can also ask ourselves other questions: By whom
were these very young Chinese priests ordained?
Obviously not by a bishop loyal to the (Roman Catholic)
Church, but rather by a “patriot” bishop, or at
best by some bishop himself ordained by yet another
“patriot” bishop. This is also, strangely enough,
the case with the schismatic Orthodox whose bishops
and priests are now recognized as legitimate by
today’s Conciliar Church, unlike others who, mind
you, have been “excommunicated” for their heroic
loyalty to the Church as well as to scared Tradition.
John Paul II and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople,
Bartholomew I in the Vatican Basilica of St. Peter, June
SISINONO, July-August 1996)
A SHADOW ON MARY’S VIRGINITY
a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall
be called Emmanuel.
famous text of Isaias (7:14) was the topic of the papal
catechism [taught every Wednesday by the Holy Father-Ed.]
on January 31, 1996. We read there:
the context of the message of the angel who invites Joseph
to take with him Mary, his wife, "for that which
is formed in her is the handiwork of the Holy Ghost,"
Matthew attributes a Christological and Marian signification
to the speech. In fact, he adds, " All this was done
that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the
prophet saying, "Behold a virgin shall be with child
and bring forth a son and they shall call his name Emmanuel,
which being interpreted is, God with us" (Mt. 1:22,23).
Matthew the Evangelist writes under the inspiration of the
Holy Ghost. Therefore, it is for the least improper to say
that he "attributes a Christological and Marian signification
to the speech." It would be, on the contrary, precise
to say that, under the divine inspiration, he gives the
true signification concerning it. Moreover, this signification
is clearly manifested also by words of the prophet Isaias:
thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shall bring forth a
son and thou shalt call his name Jesus (Lk. 1:31).
HOLY FATHER'S "CATECHISM" OF THE PEOPLE CONTINUES:
prophecy does not announce explicitly, in the Hebrew text,
the virginal birth of the Emmanuel: the word used (almah),
in fact, signifies quite simply a young lady and not necessarily
a virgin. Besides, we know that the Jewish tradition did
not propose the ideal of perpetual virginity, nor has
it ever expressed the idea of a virginal motherhood.
word almah does not signify "quite simply a
young lady," but an unmarried young lady, a young girl
for marriage and therefore, without exceptions, a virgin.
The prophet, in using almah (young girl for marriage),
and not issah (a married lady) for the mother of
the Emmanuel who shall conceive and shall bring forth a
son means to indicate clearly the virginity of this conception
and of this childbirth…:
much so that it will be she who will give the name to
her son, whereas it is normally the role of the father
to do so.1
Hebrew, it is true, betulah is the precise word employed
for virgin. But in biblical usage, almah is, for
motives that we have just explained, a synonym of betulah.
Thus in Genesis 24:43, Rebecca, before her meeting with
Isaac is called almah, and in verse 16, betulah….In
Exodus 2:8, Mary the sister of Moses, not even an adolescent,
is called almah. We can also refer to the Canticle
of Canticles (1:3; 6:8), which distinguishes the young ladies,
virgins, queens and the other wives of the king. See also
Psalm 68:26. "Isaias," writes L. Dennefeld, "preferred
to name the mother of the Emmanuel, almah, signifying
a young lady unmarried because a young unmarried lady should
be considered a virgin till proof of the contrary."
Dennefeld brings to light that the signification of virgin
is reminded to us by the context: Isaias obviously wants
to express a unique privilege which distinguishes the mother
of the Emmanuel from all other mothers and this privilege
cannot be one to be considered outside of marriage in the
ordinary course of events, because this instead of honoring,
would rather dishonor the mother of the Emmanuel.2
That is why the translation in Isaias 7: 14 almah (or
rather ha Almah, with the article) is a virgin.
The Jerusalem Bible, Steimann also translates almah
quite simply as "young lady." But this Steimann
is not of "blessed memory," for his Life of
Jesus was placed on the Index,3
and the Holy Office, in a letter dated February 11,
1962, forbade the author to write or to publish on biblical
themes. But behold, his very unfortunate translation, which
contradicted all Catholic tradition and biblical exegesis,
now once again resurfaced in the "catechism" of
Pope John Paul II.
it is true "that the Jewish tradition did not propose
the ideal of a perpetual virginity," but it remains
to be proved in a categorical manner that it "never
has expressed the idea of a virginal maternity. "On
the contrary, J. Cales writes that in Isaias 7:14, the announcement
of the Messiah, born of a virgin mother was not appearing
for the first time: Isaias speaks of "the virgin"
(ha Almah, with the article) who conceives and gives
birth. He presumes this to be known, that a virgin will
conceive, by those whom he addresses. In the parallel prophecy
of Micheas (5:1 ff), we find a similar allusion to the virginal
maternity, but which is even more unintelligible to those
listeners who "know nothing about" the virginal
in fact, in his famous words (brought to mind also by the
catechism of Pope John Paul II) says:
thou Bethlehem Ephrata... out of thee shall he come forth
unto me that is to be ruler of Israel...and his going
forth...from the days of eternity. It is for this that
Jahweh shall give them up to the mercy of the other one
till the time where is she that travaileth shall bring
the words 'wherein she that travaileth shall bring forth,'
Micheas refers certainly to the famous prophesy of the virgin
in Isaias 7:14; prophesy which he presumes most well-known
by his contemporaries," notes Fr. Vaccari. In this
Fr. Vaccari is perfectly in line with J. Cales on the fact
that the prophetical books of the Old Testament are nothing
but a synthesis more or less in fragments of the prophetical
preaching in which "the idea of a virginal maternity"
was far from being unknown.
confirmation comes from the Old Greek version of the Old
Testament, in which the Hebrew translator has rendered the
Hebrew ha almah by e parthenos, the virgin.
This is the way that the Syrian translator of the Peschitto
[Syriac version of the Bible], translated the word as also
did St. Jerome later in the Latin Vulgate. We can therefore
conclude with Angelo Penna:
in Hebrew we do not read the technical term as virgin
but by a less known and more general term which signifies
"young girl for marriage." We must therefore
admit that in times past the ancient Jews, in translating
the passage into Greek (2nd century BC) showed
clearly that they understood the text in the sense of
a childbirth from a virgin.4
the "catechism" of Pope John Paul II, however,
the Greek translation, nevertheless, the Hebrew words
were rendered by the term parthenos, virgin. In
this fact, which could seem simply like a particularity
in translation, we must recognize a mysterious orientation
given by the Holy Ghost to the words of Isaias to prepare
the understanding of the extraordinary birth of the Messiah.
why complicate that which is so simple, with the result
being to throw a shadow of doubt on the "queen of Messianic
prophecies"?- No. It is not necessary to suppose "a
mysterious orientation given by the Holy Spirit," nor
even a "particularity in translation." The explanation
is evident: the ancient Jews in translating, even before
the days of the birth of Christ, almah by parthenos
(=virgin) clearly showed: 1) that they considered
almah (maiden) as a synonym of betulah (virgin),
and, 2) that "the idea of virginal maternity"
was not at all absent from the Jewish tradition.
John Paul II is not a Bible scholar and we have to presume
therefore that behind this papal "catechism" there
is an expert. An "expert" has cast a shadow on
the term almah - a term which is used very clearly
as a synonym of betulah (=virgin). That a
"catechism" should propose doubts and not certitudes
seems to us very grave. The more so since it is here a question
of a "papal catechism" and that which is at stake
is the "queen of all Messianic prophecies."
Courrier de Rome, Feb., 1997)
F. Spadafora, Il Libro Sacro, ed. Messagero, Padua,
Enchiridion Biblicon, no.635.
Angelo Penna, La Sacra Biblia, ed. Marietti,
1962, vo1.II, p.590.
Courtesy of the Angelus
Press, Kansas City, MO 64109
translated from the Italian
Fr. Du Chalard
Via Madonna degli Angeli, 14
Italia 00049 Velletri (Roma)