Si Si No No Title

July 1997 No. 22

During 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.”

But 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.

The 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.

This 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 world:

Going 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. 28:19-20).

The 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.

But 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.

This cult of man and of woman, professed with enthusiasm by the priest hierarchy, is the worship of idols, of Isis and of Osiris.1 And what happened to those who forgot the one and true God – to Whom they owed everything – in order to worship idols?

Did 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).

But in this hierarchy’s Church, in this desert of Faith, does anyone remember this any longer?


(From 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.






A story appeared in the Italian newspaper Il Giornale, Feb., 18, 1996:

Condoms 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.

The “Dutch Church” followed suit:

The 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.

But 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.”

It 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.




(A letter addressed to SISINONO)

On 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!

These 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.

Faced 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.

If, 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?

But 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.

A Priest



Pope John Paul II and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I in the Vatican Basilica of St. Peter, June 29, 1995.

(From SISINONO, July-August 1996)






Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.

This 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:

In 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).

St. 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:

Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shall bring forth a son and thou shalt call his name Jesus (Lk. 1:31).



This 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.

The 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

In 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.



In 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.

Besides, 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 motherhood.

Micheas, in fact, in his famous words (brought to mind also by the catechism of Pope John Paul II) says:

And 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 forth.

"By 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.



The 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:

...that 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

In the "catechism" of Pope John Paul II, however, we read:

In 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.

But 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.



Pope 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."


(From Courrier de Rome, Feb., 1997)

1.  F. Spadafora, Il Libro Sacro, ed. Messagero, Padua, p. 124.

2.  Ibid.

3.  Enchiridion Biblicon, no.635.

4.  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)

Home | Newsletters | Library | Vocations | History | Links | Search | Contact